Review of Sustainability Controls for 1 October 2016

Review of Sustainability Controls for 1 October 2016 Proposals to Alter Total Allowable Catch, Allowances, Total Allowable Commercial Catch and Deemed Value Rates for Selected Fishstocks

MPI Information Paper No: 2016/24

Appendix II

ISBN No: 978-1-77665-353-9 (online) ISSN No: 2253-394X (online)

August 2016

Contents Page

Alec Woods 1 Alister and Mary Gibson 2 Barrie Clark 3 Beth Reille 4 Bill Benfield 5 New Zealand Sport Fishing Council/LegaSea HB (BNS) 6 Brent Johnson 11 Brian Davis 12 Chatham Islands Finfish Association (CIFA) 16 Chris McDougall 20 Clem Smith 21 Dave Richardson 22 David Henry 23 Deepwater Group Ltd (DWG) 24 Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee Ltd (TOKM) (Deepwater stocks) 31 Fisheries Inshore New Zealand 37 Graham Carter 49 Graham Beattie 51 Greg Goodall 52 Ian Bilbrough 54 Iwi Collective Partnership (ICP) 55 Saavid Diving Ltd 60 New Zealand Sport Fishing Council/LegaSea HB (JDO) 62 New Zealand Sport Fishing Council/LegaSea HB (JMA) 68 John and Glenis 72 Jonathan Meikle 73 Lloyd Hanson 74 PauaMAC 7 75 Maurice Carter 81 Moana New Zealand 82 Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc. 89 Te Runanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust and Te Hoiere Asset Holding Company Ltd 90 Nga Hapu o Te Uru o Tainui Customary Fisheries Forum (SQU) 94 Nga Hapu o Te Uru o Tainui Customary Fisheries Forum (BNS) 101 New Zealand Sport Fishing Council/LegaSea HB (PAU) 108 Paua Industry Council 112 Reid Forrest 115 Rod Littlefield 117 Ron Prestage 118 Sanford Ltd 119 Sealord Group Ltd 121 Solander Maritime Ltd 125 Bruce Reid 128 New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council (NZRIC) 130 New Zealand Sport Fishing Council/LegaSea HB (SNA) 135 Peter Johnson 140 Independent Fisheries Ltd 141

Troy Dando 143 Tony Orman 146 Talley’s Group Ltd 147 Tasman and Sounds Recreational Fishers’ Association Inc. (TASFISH) 149 Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee Ltd (TOKM) (PAU) 167 Waikawa Fishing Company Ltd 172 LegaSea HB 173 Southern Inshore Fisheries Management Company Ltd 175

South Island Eel Submissions 198 Bruce Reay 198 Dominic Preece 200 Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee Ltd 204 Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 210 Emma Burns 217 Meridian Energy Ltd 219 Working Waters Trust 220 Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki 223 Te Taumutu Rūnanga 226 Te Rūnanga o Waihao 227 Mossburn Enterprises Ltd 228 Manaaki Tuna 231 South Island eel generic form submissions 234

Preetha Oommen (Preetha)

From: Alec Woods s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 3 July 2016 10:24 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: SNA submission

Categories: Transferred to Piritahi

The SNA biomass might be increasing but any TAC increase should be a conservative one. What we need is a more nimble process to alter the TAC. There needs to be a total closure of an area of snapper nursery habitat so that sea grasses can recover. I would also like to see a move to encourage the use of lighter gear. I think we have an opportunity for Tasman Bay to be a "snapper laboratory". We have some top seafood and environmental research establishments based here, world class netlofts, a snapper enhancement facility, a comprehensive fishing engineering infrastructure. Compensation should be paid to existing quota holders so that they can shelve quota until a more stable recovery can be established. We need better SNA science in Area 7 and more of it. A well managed SNA fishery has the potential to be an example to other inshore stocks. As well as the obvious commercial benefits there are considerable potential benefits to the sports fishing industry. SNA 7 is a shared fishery. If it can't be made to work here for the benefit of all there is little hope for success in any other location. It will need to be a process of "gifts and gains". Alec Woods

Sent from my iPhone

1 1 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)

From: Snapper 7 Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 10:00 a.m. To: Sonja Hempel Subject: FW: Snapper7Management Group

Categories: Transferred to Piritahi

From: Mary Gibson [mailtos 9(2)(a) ] Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:49 p.m. To: Snapper 7 ~~Subject: Snapper7Management Group~~

1 Our submission to the review of the SNA7. total allowable catch is that to rebuild the Snapper breeding biomass. 2 A no take period 1st September to 20th December to allow schooling and breeding. Open season 21st December to end of August each year. [ to copy cod season] 3 The commercial take remain the same. The customary and amateur be 3 p.p per day.

~~Alister and Mary Gibson. s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 2 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Barrie and Helen Clark s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 5:16 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Snapper FMA 7~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Submission Concerning Snapper FMA 7~~

I oppose an increase in the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for Snapper 7 (SNA7), as any TACC increase will slow the rebuild of this important fishery. I also oppose an increase in the recreational daily bag limit, from 3 to 6, applying in the Marlborough Sounds, on the same grounds as for commercial ie. it will slow the rebuild of stocks. Three snapper is enough for any fisher for one day; most people fish with friends and, if there are for example two or three on a boat, then six or nine snapper can be caught from the one boat, more than enough. In addition, I support the reduction of the 10 snapper recreational bag limit for Tasman and Golden Bays to 6 as I wish to see the snapper stocks in Tasman and Golden Bay grow to much higher numbers yet.

~~Barrie Clark s 9(2)(a) s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 3 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Beth Reille s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 2 July 2016 9:47 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

Dear MPI, I would like to see protection of Native Eels, especially the longfin. They are becoming quite rare in our streams and lakes and it’s time to stop allowing fishing of our taonga. It is also time to regulate whitebait fishing. Regards s 9(2)(a)

~~1 4 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Bill Benfield s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 3:31 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: FW: CORANZ Snapper submission~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Snapper 7 Management. A Brief submission from Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations (CORANZ) on Management of Snapper 7.~~

~~In the past assessments of recreational catches relative to commercial catches have been inaccurate with gross over‐estimate of recreational snapper catches.~~

Past management has been characterised by favouring commercial and discriminating at times against the recreational public. In one case of discrimination in the mid‐1990s, the Marlborough Sounds recreational bag limit used to be 10 and was drastically cut to 3 by “sleight of hand” by the Ministry of Fisheries while no reduction occurred with the commercial TAC. MPI have a moral responsibility to ensure a degree of fair play that is not evident here. Consequently CORANZ recommends:‐ • To increase the recreational quota and logically increase the bag limit for the Marlborough Sounds from 3 to 6. • Allow the fishery recover more before any increase in commercial quota. • Reduce the recreational bag limit for Golden Bay and Tasman Bay to the same as for the Sounds, i.e. Six snapper per person is ample. • Encourage ethical recreational fishing practices ‐ and commercial too.

~~Bill Benfield, Co‐chairman CORANZ s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 5 Phil Appleyard President NZ Sport Fishing Council s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6011 [email protected]~~

~~9 July 2016~~

~~NZ Sport Fishing Council submission on the review of management controls for the Bluenose Fishery (BNS 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8) in 2016~~

Recommendations: 1. The minimum intervention for Bluenose in 2016/17 is MPI’s Option 3, which is the imposition of the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) reduction abandoned in 2013 – a. The Minister sets the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) at 704 tonnes. b. The Minister sets aside 63 tonnes to allow for recreational fishing interests. c. The Minister sets aside 9 tonnes to allow for Maori customary fishing interests. d. The Minister sets aside 12 tonnes to allow for fishing related mortality. e. The Minister sets the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) at 620 tonnes. 2. Reduce the commercial catch and impose a rebuild plan for Bluenose, supported by independent monitoring and science.

NZ Sport Fishing Council - LEGASEA 3. The New Zealand Sport Fishing Council and our outreach LegaSea (the submitters) appreciate the opportunity to submit on the review of management controls for the Bluenose fishery (BNS 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8). The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) released their Discussion Paper on 10 June 2016 with submissions due by 11 July. Any changes will apply from 1 October 2016.

4. The NZ Sport Fishing Council is a national sports organisation with over 32,000 affiliated members from 57 clubs nationwide. The Council has initiated LegaSea to generate widespread awareness and support for the need to restore abundance in our inshore marine environment. Also, to broaden NZSFC involvement in marine management advocacy, research, education and alignment on behalf of our members and LegaSea supporters. www.legasea.co.nz

5. The submitters are committed to ensuring that sustainability measures and environmental management controls are designed and implemented to achieve the Purpose and Principles of the Fisheries Act 1996, including “maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations…” [s8(2)(a) Fisheries Act 1996]

6. The submitters continue to object to the Ministry’s tight consultation timetable, in this instance, 21 working days. In our view this timeframe does not allow for adequate consultation, it is particularly offensive for non-commercial organisations such as ours that need to consult with a Bluenose submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 1 6 range of interests and volunteers. This is unacceptable consultation and, in our opinion most likely unlawful as per ss 12 and 13 of the Fisheries Act and as judged by the Court of Appeal1.

7. NZSFC representatives are available to discuss this submission in more detail if required. We look forward to positive outcomes from this review and would like to be kept informed of future developments. Our contact is Dave Lockwood, [email protected].

Biology 8. Bluenose is a poorly understood species. Spawning locations, nursery areas, migratory patterns, species range, natural age structure, and recruitment strength are all unknown. Bluenose is a long-lived species with late maturity. It is likely that at low abundance levels catches will comprise of mainly smaller, possibly immature fish. Stocks with these characteristics are highly susceptible to growth overfishing and risk stock recruitment relationships depressing productivity.

Executive Summary 9. The combination of poor biological understanding of Bluenose and low stock size place an obligation on the government to rebuild the stock with reference to the Ministry’s Harvest Strategy Standard.

~~10. The minimum intervention must be Option 3, which is the imposition of the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) reduction abandoned in 2013.~~

11. The stock remains at risk from overfishing due to our poor knowledge of the biological characteristics of Bluenose. In the interests of stimulating a faster and more certain rebuild the government is urged to consider a larger reduction in catch.

~~12. The catch curve of the last 40 years describes a stock passing through the development phase to full exploitation and finally to an overfished state. (Figure 2)~~

1 International Airport Ltd and Air New Zealand (CA 23/92, 73/92[1993] 1 NZLR 671). Bluenose submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 2 7 Common Ground 13. An industry funded stock assessment in 2011 found that commercial catch rates in all areas of New Zealand had declined, and concluded that for stock assessment purposes Bluenose can be considered a single stock in NZ’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Following a management review the Minister decided on a series of TACC reductions over 3 years (Table 2).

14. The third stage (2013-14) of the phased TACC reductions was not enacted due to an apparent improvement in catch rates (CPUE) and optimism that the stock was rebuilding faster than anticipated. The current stock assessment no longer supports this hypothesis.

15. The 2016 assessment confirms the 2011 assessment, that the stock is likely as not below the soft limit of 20% of unfished biomass, B20, but very unlikely to be below the hard limit B10. Still a long way from the default target biomass of 40% of unfished biomass, B40.

16. The catch reductions made so far have are thought to have either stopped further decline in abundance or increased the stock slightly – there is no clear signal. At current settings there is no confidence of a rebuild, though current catches could be maintained for a while – a state of “sustainable depletion”.

~~17. MPI is proposing a reduction now and possibly some decision rules that could guide TACCs in the future.~~

~~18. MPI only review management when some change is considered necessary. They are consulting on the following options -~~

Bluenose submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 3 8 Rebuilding the Stock 19. It is unlikely that Bluenose within the Exclusive Economic Zone comprise a single stock, but not impossible. To date there is no analysis that supports multiple stocks, however very little is known. The default stock target of 40% means policy settings for Bluenose must change, substantially in all areas.

20. It is notable that industry managed to avoid the last of the catch reductions by promoting a theoretical possibility that Ministry accepted hook, line and sinker. The industry’s view is encapsulated in their recent newsletter comment, “After several years of decline CPUE across BNS stocks up until 2011, MPI consulted on reducing the combined BNS TACCs from 1,100 tonnes to 620 tonnes. We have successfully avoided these TACC reductions for several years and maintained the BNS TACCs at 1,100 tonnes”. It can be assumed a similar tactic will arise with this review. It may take the form of more data gathering, inevitably it will hold out hope that better decisions can be made in the future. These are standard industry delay tactics to allow time to generate a case for not having the catch reductions imposed.

21. The rebuild target of B40 in less than Tx2 is a minimum standard – it is not a moving target. The Ministry’s Harvest Strategy Standard (HSS) does not anticipate accepting risk beyond that outcome and it is in the interests of everyone to get there on or before time. There are so many biological factors that can defeat a prolonged rebuild programme (recruitment or environmental failures) that it behooves government to intervene and restore the stock to comply with the HSS with a high degree of certainty.

Future Policy Settings 22. Management Strategy Evaluation. The MSE is only as good as its input assumptions. Given the paucity of validated data on Bluenose, the model would be almost entirely based on assumptions piled on assumptions. While MPI may be attracted to MSE and Management Procedures as a way of informing catch settings, we are not convinced of their value because current examples only offer support to an industry-preferred view that CPUE is proportional to abundance and modest increases in CPUE should lead to increased TACCs.

23. Catch sampling. Setting catch limits without monitoring the relative age structure over time is reckless. Better late than never, but the sampling now is of an overexploited stock and the age composition and initial recruitment of a near virgin stock is unknown.

24. Monitoring. It is pointless to monitor Bluenose with the intention to alter catch limits frequently in response to signals of CPUE or age. The long-lived, low productive nature of the stock with an unknown range and season migration mean than reliable signs of increased abundance will take many years to confirm.

25. The submitters do not support the use of MSE for low information stocks, and it follows that Management Procedures to guide catch setting would have to be very coarse to accommodate all the uncertainty and knowledge deficit, and to ensure the precautionary principles of the Fisheries Act are met.

~~Principles 26. The environmental and information Principles must be taken into account by anyone exercising functions under the Fisheries Act 1996.~~

27. In particular s.10 (b) and (c) imports a degree of caution when assessing risk. We know biological information is uncertain and unreliable for Bluenose and the Minister must be fully informed of the risks associated with all the available management options

28. Section 9 (a) also invokes caution as the knowledge of associated and dependent species is virtually zero. Due to the information vacuum a greater degree of caution is expected from decision makers. Bluenose submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 4 9 Summary 29. Bluenose has all the characteristics of an overexploited stock in need of rebuilding. Rebuilding long-lived, low productivity stocks is a long game requiring aggressive catch reductions to allow older fish to become more common in the population.

30. Option 3 must be the minimum reduction considering the state of the stock. Government should resist the pleadings of hardship that results from catch reductions. There may well be some hardship, but the catch curve informs us that many millions of dollars have been earned while fishing down the stock and now a strong rebuild plan is required.

31. There must be no acceptance of a ‘deal’ where catch reductions are exchanged for promises of additional data and hopes for a brighter view. We have had these promises before. Bluenose is in a depleted state because of the current level of exploitation. The government must step up and do what it is statutorily obligated to do – reduce the commercial catch and impose a rebuild plan supported by independent monitoring and science. The alternative is many years of sustainable depletion, which is bad for the stock, bad for fishers and New Zealand as whole.

~~Bluenose submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 5 10 SNAPPER 7 SUBMISSION~~

It is no secret that the snapper fishery in this area was plundered by both the commercial fisherman and recreational fisherman over past generations. With stories of the commercial industry catching so many snapper that they couldn’t process it in time and thus dumping it into landfills, and recreational people fertilizing their lemon trees with snapper due to catching more than they could eat. We are very fortunate that is has recently began to show signs of recovery. I have two young boys and I truly hope that this generation does not make the same mistake as its forbearers. It is my wish that my sons and all the other young boys and girls out there will be able to enjoy the thrill of catching snapper for many generations to come.

It is for this reason that I support Option One (Status Que). I would also like to add the following in regard to the recreational sector: Perhaps the current recreational catch is greater than 90 ton however rather than hypothetically increase it to 250 ton on paper, what about trying to reduce the current recreational catch?? Therefore, further protecting this valuable fishery for all. I suggest these three things: 1. Raise the minimum size of recreationally caught snapper to at least equal that of the North Island (27cm). The current minimum of 25cm is honestly too small, some of these fish have not even had a chance to spawn. 2. Drop the daily limit from the current 10 per person to 6 or 7 snapper per person. 3. Allow only 1 longline per recreational boat, not the current two.

It is my belief that nearly all recreational fisherman would support certainly the first two of these suggestions if not all three. You guys are the ones that make the decisions so: “please protect our snapper fishery for all, for years to come” !!

~~Regards: Brent Johnson s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Brian Davis s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 9:39 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: PAU7 Stock Assessment~~

~~Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Good Morning MPI~~

~~I am a Paua 7 quota owner 8960054 and have held shares in the fishery since 1989.~~

~~As you can see, I have been involved in the fishery for some time and it saddens me to observe the current status of the fishery and the state of my investment.~~

~~I attended the recent PauaMac7 AGM and voted to take measures to secure the future sustainability of our fishery.~~

~~I am strongly of the opinion that the Minister and his scientific team need to address some of the following key topics as components of a toolbox to manage our fishery.~~

1. Continue the project of gathering high quality fine scale & timely scientific data to support good decision making 2. Continue a project based fisheries compliance strategy with clear objectives and outcomes 3. Promote education in both the commercial and recreational sectors 4. Commensurate with the proposed PAU7 QMS quota reduction, a reduction in the amateur daily bag limit be implemented (See below) 5. That the Minister by way of Regulation or a Gazette Notice prohibit the transportation of paua meat across the New Zealand border except when associated with the correct LFR documentation. (See below) 6. When the Minister approves Marine Reserves, MPA’s or IWI Reserves, the quota yielded from this coastline shall be purchased from the open market and retired. (See note below) 7. Work with Regional Councils and the Minister for the Environment to better manage the impact of land use on our fishery e.g. forestry erosion. To improve land use and practices particularly with reference to forestry operations in the Marlborough Sounds and adjoin water ways.

~~Recreational Daily bag Limit~~

I have strong associations with recreational diving sector also, being a 3 time South Island Spearfishing Champion and runner up several times. Additionally being a SCUBA instructor for many years. The explosion of interest and activity in recreational freediving and seafood gathering has been striking. The impact on the fishery and cumulative tonnage annually taken by the recreational sector is now significant.

1 12 The Minister needs to de-politicalize this elephant in the corner of the room and reduce the amateur daily bag limit. Being cognizant of the several reductions and shelving’s that the commercial sector have absorbed.

An elegant solution would be to mirror the Kaikoura “Te Korowai” initiative of reducing the daily limit from 10 to 6 Paua per fisher per day. Marlborough and Kaikoura are adjoining fisheries and having the same daily bag limit would remove any compliance ambiguity.

~~Prohibit exporting of amateur Paua take~~

~~There is anecdotal evidence that paua meat is being taken within baggage off shore by outward bound tourists.~~

~~Many are Asian and clearly have not personally gathered the seafood. The pathway to their possession is dubious.~~

~~The Minister should prohibit such activity and make such practice an offence except where appropriate documentation supplied by a licensed LFR is provided. I understand this is the case in Australia.~~

~~Spatial Depletion~~

~~I support the initiative of Marine Reserves, protected and customary areas.~~

~~When making a decision to approve, the Minister must consider and be responsible for the impact on the fishery and to the individual quota owners.~~

~~The quota supported from the affected coastline needs to be quantified and retired from the QMS by purchasing from the open market.~~

Other administrations have this view and even within New Zealand a legal precedents exists. E.g. The Public Works Act where by the Crown acquires land compulsorily from an entity for the common good of the community and enters into a private treaty or by way of an independent valuation to purchase said asset from the disaffected party.

~~Land Care and Use~~

There is increasing evidence that the relationship between land use and the marine environment is homogenous. In none of my readings of the MPI reports relating to our fishery does it comment on the sedimentation, water quality and turbidity.

~~Land use, run off, sedimentation, fresh water quality all impact on the coastal maritime environment.~~

~~2 13~~

~~Interestingly the Cawthron Institute has looked at the negative effect of sedimentation on the respiratory impact of haliotis.irs.~~

~~The Ministry for the Environment has standardized the reporting required of Regional Councils on the environment to give an national overview.~~

~~Coastal fisheries management needs to interface with the relationship of land and sea.~~

~~Summary:~~

~~I congratulate the PAUAMAC7 organization on:~~

 Data Loggers  Reseeding program  Diver training and registration  Quota shelving  Variable minimum legal size limit  Dialogue with local Iwi & recreational sectors  Liaison with MPI and NIWA

~~However, I strongly feel that Minister needs to open his tool box more fully and moderate the expectation that the commercial sector must accept all of the pain and responsibility for PAU7 fishery.~~

You will see that I have been involved in the Fishery for many years, attended more meetings that I can count, travelled thousands of kilometers to attend, listened to multiple experts and officials as they come and go with their circular arguments. History would not score them well.

I accept the that a quota cut is necessary, but I will not accept that it is they only tool and the Minister needs to address the important issues above that are part of the fabric of this complex tapestry of our valuable fishery.

~~Yours faithfully~~

~~Brian Davis~~

~~Quota Owner~~

~~3 14 Radio Communications is my Business~~

~~Brian Davis s 9(2)(a)~~

~~RSM Accredited Radio Engineer (ARE) Radio Frequency Consultant Radio Surveyor/Inspector of Ships Radio Examiner & Callsign Provider (ARX)~~

~~e-mail: s 9(2)(a)~~

~~4 15 Chatham Islands Finfish Association~~

~~Fishermens Office, Waitangi, Chatham Island. s 9(2)(a)~~

Inshore Fisheries Management, Ministry for Primary Industries, P O Box 2526, Wellington 6011. Emailed to: [email protected] Submission from the Chatham Islands Finfish Association (CIFA) on the proposed Review of Management Controls for the Bluenose Fishery (BNS 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8) in 2016: MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/16 Introduction This is a submission on the Review of Management Controls for the Bluenose Fishery (BNS 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8) in 2016 (The Review). The Chatham Islands Finfish Association (CIFA) represents Chatham Island quota holders and ACE fishermen; and fish processors who make their living from catching and processing wetfish from the Chatham Islands FMA4. The objectives of CIFA is to promote sustainable management of Chatham Islands fish stocks, protect harvest and access rights and protect/enhance quota value. The address for service for this submission is: Attn: Bill Chisholm, s 9(2)(a)

Should a hearing be called, CIFA would like to be heard in support of this submission. CIFA submits that a separate Bluenose Area 4 needs to be created, as per the Proposal outlined in Necklen & McClurg (2015). This would prevent excessive depletion of what may be an area-specific bluenose stock around the Chatham Islands, and allow for an alternative rebuild plan of Chatham Islands bluenose stocks in accordance with a separate and more refined monitoring approach for the new Area 4 BNS, as outlined in Middleton (2015).

Section 3.2 Management Approach The Review states that the management approach is based on the “assumption” that bluenose is a single biological stock. Subsequent management control options are based on this assumption. We submit that if stricter management controls (such as Option 2 or 3) are imposed to rebuild the fishery, then the precautionary approach requires a concurrent review of stock management under this “one-stock” assumption. i.e. The Rebuild Plan should include more fine-scale controls on area stocks, given the level of overall stock depletion, concerns that specific stocks may be more (or less) depleted than others, and the possibility that an alternative rebuild plan may be necessary for area-discrete stocks. We agree that changes to the current management approach may result in changes to fishing practices, which may disrupt the continuity of the CPUE series and affect the ability to monitor the fishery effectively using this method. However, we are aware that all Area 3 bluenose CPUE is recorded by sub-area, with a separate sub area

~~s 9(2)(a)~~

16 encompassing the proposed Area BNS4. Therefore continuity of CPUE data will largely be retained. Any CPUE distortions caused by a separation of BNS 3 and 4 will need to be addressed through the process suggested in the Review i.e. … further work to determine the best way to manage and monitor bluenose over the longer term regardless of decisions on management settings for the 2016/17 fishing year.

Section 4.1 Biological Characteristics Of Bluenose While it is accepted that the current available science points to a single biological stock for bluenose, the “current available science” is not particularly robust. For example, there are differences in catch rates and CPUE trends within BNS 3 sub- areas. Figure 13 below, from Bentley (2016), shows that CPUE trends in Area SW (South-West) are quite different to the others. In Area CI (Chatham Islands), CPUE does not follow the amalgamated national trends after the Rebuild Plan was implemented in 2011. For example, CPUE for both types of CI line fishing has increased sharply since 2011, whereas in other areas it has not. This indicates that the rebuild potential for the CI area may be better than elsewhere, providing they are managed separately.

Section 4.5 Other Sources Of Fishing-Related Mortality We are aware that there are allegations of significant illegal fishing of Bluenose in Area 4. This is of particular concern, as it demonstrates a potential for a lesser regard to the sustainability of this fishery, by those with no ties to the wider Area 4 (Chatham Islands) fishery.

Section 4.7 Management Procedure to Guide the Rebuild We accept the conclusion of the Review that further scientific development will be needed before a Management Procedure and/or Decision Rule could be adopted to guide the setting of catch limits for bluenose. Further to this, we believe that it would be essential to undertake this with a separate BNS Area 4. Our reasons for this are: 1. The Chatham Islands bluenose fishery is currently more “targeted” than “bycatch”. This means that fine-scale management controls need to be more responsive to maintain stock sustainability and the sustainability of the targeted fishery. 2. If separation of an Area 4 BNS occurs, then it is best to undertake this at a time where all other stock assessments and management procedures are being varied/improved, as this facilitates data continuity from a common starting point. 3. A greater level of oversight is possible, from bluenose landed locally to Chatham Island-based LFR’s. This would reduce the potential for illegal practices. Section 6. Proposed Response CIFA supports Option 2, as this will prevent further depletion of Area 4 BNS stocks, without undue penalties on existing fishing practices; providing the separation of BNS 4 stocks occur, and a separate Rebuild Plan for BNS 4 is developed.

~~Summary and Conclusion~~

~~s 9(2)(a)~~

17 CIFA recommends that, as part of the nationwide Rebuild Plan, a separate Quota Management Area for bluenose around the Chatham Islands is created (BNS 4), as per the joint proposal submitted in 2015 (Necklen & McClurg 2015). Even if it were affirmed that Bluenose were one biological stock, CIFA submits that better control over sustainability outcomes will be achieved if effort management measures are applied at a finer scale than at present. In addition, CIFA supports Option 2 outlined in the Review, providing the separation of BNS 4 stocks occur, and a separate Rebuild Plan for BNS 4 is developed over the next few years. Yours faithfully

~~Bill Chisholm – secretary CHATHAM ISLANDS FINFISH ASSOCIATION INC ______~~

References Bentley, N. 2016. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) analyses for New Zealand bluenose (BNS), 1989/90 to 2014/2015. Draft report to the MPI Southern Inshore Stock Assessment Working Group, February 2016. Necklen, R.; McClurg, T. 2015. The proposed Future Management of the Chatham Islands’ Bluenose Fishery. A paper prepared for the Prime Minister (the Rt Hon John Key), the Minister for Treaty Negotiations (the Hon Chris Finlayson) and the Minister for Primary Industries (the Hon Nathan Guy), by the Hokotehi Moriori Trust, Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri and the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust, with support forom Te Ohu Kaimoana and Aotearoa Fisheries Limited. October 2015. Middleton, D.A.J. 2015. Management Procedures and Enhanced Monitoring Options for the Chatham Islands Bluenose Fishery. Report to the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust. 12pp. ______

~~s 9(2)(a)~~

~~19 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: emilyandchris s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 9:41 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: SNA7 submission~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~In response to the proposed changes to snapper 7 area I would like to voice my opinion as a recreational fisherman. I have fished Tasman Bay for over 25 years.~~

I have seen the increase in snapper over the past 7 to 10 years. I believe that the status quo (option one)should remain for now. Any increase to Total allowable catch has to be justified by strong and rigorous reputable research. There is no evidence of this in current public documents. The TAC should remain at its current level until fish stocks are at 40% of there naturally occuring level as outlined in NPI guidelines.

~~Overall YES to status quo and no to increase.~~

~~Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.~~

~~Chris McDougall s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 20 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 10 June 2016 5:35 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Lake Ellesmere Fisherman's Association~~

You appear. to have mistaken the ANG 13 tac for the tacc. Your option two ,which you say is a ten percent increase, is in fact a fourteen percent decrease. I assume it is a mistake and so will await your response before commenting further.

~~Clem Smith Sent fro!m Yahoo Mailon Android~~

~~1 21 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Wekarich s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 5:40 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: snapper~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Totally against seeing great numbers being caught by Commercial ial fishermen.It is way past time to look after our resources. Dave Richardson~~

~~Sent from Samsung tablet~~

~~1 22 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: David Henry s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 3:29 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission Concerning Snapper FMA 7~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

To whom it may concern. I support raising the recreational snapper bag limit to 6 for the Sounds, reducing it in Golden Bay/Tasman Bay to 6. Extreme caution in raising TACC for commercial. Your sincerely. David Henry s 9(2)(a)

~~1 23 11 July 2016~~

~~Deepwater Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6011~~

~~Review of Fisheries Management Controls from 1 October 2016~~

The Deepwater Group Ltd (DWG) represents Shareholders who collectively own quota for the fish stocks being reviewed: SQU1 J, BAR 5, JMA 3, RBY 3, SCI 2, JMA 7, LIN 7, OEO 4, RBY (all stocks), and SWA 3.

DWG Shareholders remain committed to the ongoing sustainable utilisation of New Zealand’s deepwater fisheries and to the enhancement of their management performances, where required, to meet the MSC Fisheries Standard.

~~DWG notes two key principles, which we seek MPI’s agreement to take into consideration when considering changes to TACCs or to other fisheries management controls:~~

• Adjustments to TACCs should only be made as informed by robust, peer reviewed science, wherever this is possible • Adjustments to the deemed values should not be used as a fisheries management measure in lieu of a correctly set TACC. In fisheries where the available ACE is not aligned with the stock abundance, as a consequence of the TACC being set too low, then the TACC must be reset to align with the level of sustainable catch, prior to any review or resetting of deemed value levels being contemplated.

~~1. Review of Management Controls for Arrow Squid Jigging Fishery (SQU 1J) in 2016~~

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own 84% of SQU 1J quota: • Acknowledge that there is no stock assessment for squid and that therefore the TACC is set at an arbitrary level, one informed more by consideration of allocation of economic access rather than sustainability considerations • Accept that annual catches in SQU 1J have been ~5% of the TACC since 2006-07 • Accept that the TACC is unlikely to be caught in future years due to the restrictions now in place on FCV’s, which preclude ready access to suitable vessels capable of jigging in this fishery • Accept the proposal to reduce the TACC in order to reduce the impost of high levels of cost recovery levies on SQU1J quota owners.

~~DWG advises that there is support from SQU 1J quota owners for MPI’s Option 3, a TACC decrease from 50,212 tonnes to 5,000 tonnes.~~

~~The mandate from Shareholders for Option 3 is provided on the bases that:~~

~~Deepwater Group Ltd – s 9(2)(a) 24~~

• This TACC reduction will result in a reduction in cost recovery levies from SQU 1J quota owners for 2016-17 and future years • These cost reductions will not be reassigned by MPI to other deepwater fish stocks • During 2016-17, DWG and MPI will instigate discussions with quota owners on options for amalgamating SQU 1J and SQU 1T into a single QMA and TACC (i.e. ‘SQU 1’), which would not be method-specified and would be separate from SQU 6T • Without such an amalgamation or assurances on cost recovery reductions, SQU 1J quota owners seek discussions with MPI on appropriate future TACC level for SQU 1J, which will likely be greater than 5,000 tonnes.

~~2. Review of Management Controls for Barracouta Fishery (BAR 5) in 2016~~

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own BAR 5 quota: • Acknowledge that, although there is currently no stock assesment for BAR 5, the best available science (i.e. the 2016 CPUE analysis) indicates the catch rates remain high • Note that in recent years, annual catches from BAR 5 have regularly exceeded the TACC, since it was reduced from 9,282 tonnes in 1998-99 • Note that the high CPUE is valid scientific information to support the view that the BAR 5 stock can sustain a higher annual catch than that set by the current TACC of 7,470 tonnes • Note that there would be little risk to the stock status in the near term, given the steady recruitment into the fishery over the past decade.

~~DWG advises that there is support from BAR 5 quota owners for MPI’s Option 3, a TACC increase from 7,470 tonnes to 9,280 tonnes.~~

~~The mandate from Shareholders for Option 3 is provided on the basis that MPI continues to collect age composition data, and continues to monitor commercial CPUE as the index of stock abundance.~~

~~3. Review of Management Controls for Jack Mackerel Fishery (JMA 3) in 2016~~

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own 89% of JMA 3 quota, noting: • The annual catch of all species of jack mackerel from JMA 3 has not exceeded 5,000 tonnes in any of the past 15 years • The catch of Trachurus murphyi during 2012-13 was dominated by 14 to 18 year old fish with very few fish younger than 11 or older than 22 years • The catch from JMA 3 in each of the past five years has been comprised of around half or more T. murphyi • New Zealand does not report catches of T. murphyi to SPRFMO. New Zealand fish are not considered part of the managed eastern stock of jack mackerel that is assessed and managed by SPRFMO • Given the above, quota owners do not accept there is any real risk to any of the JMA species within the JMA3 stock from retaining the current TACC.

Deepwater Group Ltd – s 9(2)(a) 25 DWG advises that the majority of shareholders owning JMA 3 quota support a stock assessment being undertaken during 2016-17 before a TACC reduction is considered for JMA 3, noting that DWG is in discussion with MPI on the specifications and costs of doing so and that the cost is likely to be less than $40,000 for two CPUE analyses and stock assessments for each of JMA 3 and JMA 7. The JMA 3 stock assessment would be undertaken and completed in time to inform a management review prior to 1 October 2017.

~~Two shareholders prefer a more precautionary approach through a 50% TACC reduction effective from 1 October 2016 (i.e. MPI’s Option 1, a TACC reduction from 18,000 t to 9,000 t).~~

DWG notes the planned CPUE anlaysis and a stock assessments for each of JMA 3 and JMA 7 during 2016-17 is subject to MPI’s acceptance of the specifications and to Shareholders’ approval of the project and budget.

DWG further advises that, in the event the Minister decides to reduce the JMA 3 TACC, and should there subsequently be another influx of T. murphyi into New Zealand’s EEZ in the future, then the JMA TACCs should again be increased to enable utilisation of this transient resource.

~~4. Review of Management Controls for Rubyfish (RBY 3) in 2016~~

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own RBY 3 quota: • Acknowledge the options to increase the TACC based on recent levels of catch in recognition that the current 3 tonne TACC is both nominal and conservative • Seek MPI’s acceptance that any TACC set for RBY 3 without robust science will be a nominal exercise • Seek MPI’s agreement to a fourth option, namely for the RBY 3 TACC to be set at 60 tonnes • Seek MPI’s agreement to engage with quota owners in a discussion on options to better assess the stock abundance of RBY 3, within the planning cycle for the 2016-17 fisheries science work programme.

~~DWG advises that RBY 3 quota owners support a TACC increase from 3 tonnes to 60 tonnes.~~

~~5. Review of Management Controls for Scampi (SCI 2) in 2016~~

~~DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own 86% of SCI 2 quota:~~

• Acknowledge the new information esimates the SCI 2 biomass to be 101% B0 and therefore very likely (i.e. more than 90% probability) to be at or above the default management target of 40% B0 • Note that projections of stock sizes out for five years (i.e. out to 2021) based on constant annual catch levels of up to 200 tonnes, estimate the biomass will remain at or above 40% B0 (with 98-99% probability) • Note that five year projections of the stock size estimate that with a TACC of 173 tonnes, the biomass will remain above 40% B0 (with 99% probability).

~~DWG advises that SCI 2 quota owners support MPI’s Option 2, a TACC increase from 133 tonnes to 153 tonnes.~~

~~Deepwater Group Ltd – s 9(2)(a) 26~~

~~6. Review of Deemed Value Rates for Selected Fish Stocks in 2016~~

The accepted general practice is to set the annual deemed value rates at 90% of the agreed port price. DWG notes that MPI appear to have used 2015-16 port prices rather than those agreed to for 2016-17 and ask that this be corrected.

~~Table 1 provides MPI’s proposed 2016-17 annual deemed values as a ratio of the agreed 2016- 17 port prices for each deepwater stock under review.~~

Management issues that lead to calls for changes to increase deemed value levels are all too often symptomatic of inappropriate TACC levels. TACCs must be first be reviewed and reset at correct levels before reviews of deemed values are contemplated.

DWG submits on behalf of quota owners that there is no support for the setting of deemed values to reduce catch levels where there is insufficent ACE. Rebalancing of the TACC, thereby making sufficient ACE available, must be the first adjustment to be undertaken.

~~Table 1: Ratios of Proposed 2016-17 Annual Deemed Values ($/kg) to the current 2016-17 Port Prices ($/kg) for each deepwater stock under review.~~

Proposed 2016-17 Ratio of 2014-15 Catch 2014-15 Catch Annual Stock TACC (t) Port Price Proposed (t) (% of TACC) Deemed Value ($/kg) DV to PP ($/kg) JMA 7 32,537 33,970 104% 0.15 0.20 0.75 LIN 7 3,080 3,343 109% 2.38 2.74 0.87 OEO 4 7,000 7,274 104% 0.87 0.68 1.28 RBY 3 3 14 476% 0.28 0.26 1.08 SWA 3 3,280 3,820 116% 1.74 0.63 2.76

~~i. Jack mackerel (JMA 7)~~

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own 93% of JMA 7 quota: • Acknowledge MPI’s rationale is to review JMA 7 deemed value rates based on recent levels of over-catch (~104% caught in 2014-15) • Note the ratio of the proposed annual deemed value to port price is $0.75/kg • Note MPI’s rationales for their proposal to adjust the interim deemed value (from $0.08/kg to $0.14/kg) is to increase the incentive for more regular ACE balancing throughout the year, to support greater awareness of the availability of ACE, and to promote the annual catch to remain within the TACC • Note that, as the over-catch is nominal, is not annually persistent, and is well within 10% of the TACC. Changing the interim deemed value is not justified and amounts to tinkering • Note that the small number of participants in this fishery are all known to MPI as parties who comply with the requirements and meet their deemed value liabilities and that any further incentives to meet their requirements to balance JMA 7 catches with ACE are not required.

~~Deepwater Group Ltd – s 9(2)(a) 27~~

DWG advises that JMA 7 quota owners do not support MPI’s proposal to increase the interim deemed value rate. Quota owners do support a watching brief on this and, should the TACC be consistently exceeded, then they accept that such a review might have merit in the future.

~~ii. Ling (LIN 7)~~

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own 72% of LIN 7 quota: • Acknowledge MPI’s rationale is to review LIN 7 deemed value rates based on recent levels of over-catch (e.g. 109% caught in 2014-15) and the high deemed value payments compared to quota value • Note the ratio of the proposed annual deemed value to port price is $0.87/kg • Note that MPI propose to adjust the annual deemed value rate from $0.79 /kg to $0.87/kg • Note MPI’s proposal to adjust the interim deemed value rate is to increase the incentive for more regular balancing throughout the year with ACE • Note that MPI propose to adjust the interim deemed value rate from 50% to 90% ($1.20/kg to $2.14/kg) of the annual deemed value rate ($2.38/kg).

DWG advises that LIN 7 quota owners do not support MPI’s proposal to increase the interim deemed value rate. Quota owners do support a watching brief on this and, should the TACC be consistently exceeded, then they accept a review of the TACC and possibly of the deemed values. iii. Oreo (OEO 4)

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own 94% of OEO 4 quota: • Acknowledge MPI’s proposal to review OEO 4 deemed value rates noting that this, in part, is based on recent very small levels of over-catch in some years (e.g. 101% caught in 2014- 15) • Note that over-catch is not regular in this fishery and is not forecasted to occur for 2015-16 under the lower TACC • Note that, as the over-catch is nominal is not annually persistent and is well within 10% of the TACC, changing the interim deemed value is not justified and amounts to tinkering • Note MPI’s proposal to adjust the interim deemed value rate from 50% to 90% (i.e. from $0.39/kg to $0.78/kg) of the proposed annual deemed value rate is based on the desire to increase the incentive for more regular balancing throughout the year with ACE • Note that the small number of participants in this fishery are all known to MPI as parties who comply with the requirements and meet their deemed value liabilities and that any further incentives to meet their requirements to balance OEO4 catches with ACE are not required • Note MPI’s proposal to adjust the annual deemed value rate from $0.79/kg to $0.87/kg is also not likely nor is it required to improve incentives for fishers to retain OEO 4 ACE for orange roughy fishing in ORH 3B • Note that the current annual deemed value ($0.79/kg) is greater than the current port price ($0.68/kg) and, therefore, submit that the deemed value for OEO 4 should be reduced to 90% of the port price (i.e to $0.61/kg)

~~Deepwater Group Ltd – s 9(2)(a) 28~~

DWG advises that OEO 4 quota owners do not support MPI’s proposal to increase the interim and annual deemed values for OEO 4. Quota owners do support the reduction of the annual deemed value from $0.79/kg to $0.61/kg and the setting of the interim at 90% of the annual level or $0.55/kg. iv. Rubyfish (all stocks)

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own RBY 3 quota: • Acknowledge that the main triggers for MPI’s proposed review of RBY 3 deemed values is to address the recent levels of over-catch (e.g in 2014-15 14 t of RBY 3 were caught against a 3 tonne TACC) and to address the inconsistencies between deemed value rates set for ruby fish stocks • Note MPI propose that the deemed value rates for all rubyfish stocks be standardised using existing RBY 1 deemed value rates as the basis • Note the ratio of annual deemed value to port price is $1.08/kg for RBY 3 and that this ratio is high for RBY 3 but not for all rubyfish stocks (the average port price is $1.80/kg) • Note that the proposed annual deemed value rate is based at about the level of the port price for RBY 3 and the interim to be 90% of that to allow for more regular balancing throughout the year with ACE • Note that issues with deemed values are all too often symptomatic of incorrectly set TACCs. Before reviewing the deemed values, the RBY 3 TACC must first be reset to the correct level. Quota owners do not support the resetting of deemed values to promote regular in- season ACE rebalancing where insufficent ACE is available.

~~DWG advises that quota owners do not support MPI’s proposal to increase deemed value rates for RBY 3 but do support the notional RBY 3 TACC being increased from 3 tonnes to 60 tonnes.~~

Once the RBY 3 TACC has been increased, quota owners support a watching brief on this and, should the TACC be consistently exceeded, then accept that a review on deemed values might have merit in the future

~~v. Silver Warehou (SWA 3)~~

DWG provides the following submission on behalf of Shareholders who collectively own 95% of SWA 3 quota: • Acknowledge MPI’s rationale to review SWA 3 deemed value rates is based on recent levels of over-catch (e.g. 114% caught in 2014-15) • Note MPI’s proposal to adjust the annual deemed value rate from $1.22/kg to $1.74/kg is based on the desire to improve incentives for fishers to retain SWA 3 ACE for bycatch • Note MPI’s proposal to adjust the interim deemed value rate is to increase the incentive for more regular balancing throughout the year with ACE • Note MPI’s proposal to adjust the interim deemed value rate from 50% to 90% ($0.50/kg to $1.57/kg) of the proposed annual deemed value rate • Note that the current annual deemed value ($1.22/kg) is greater than the current port price ($0.63/kg) and therefore submit that the deemed value for SWA 3 should be reduced to 90% of the port price (i.e. be set at $0.57/kg)

Deepwater Group Ltd – s 9(2)(a) 29 • Note that issues with deemed values are all too often symptomatic of incorrectly set TACCs. Before reviewing the deemed values, the SWA 3 TACC first must be reset to the correct level. Quota owners do not support the resetting of deemed values to promote regular in- season ACE rebalancing where insufficent ACE is available. • DWG understands MPI has contracted a stock assessment for SWA 3 which will be available in time to inform consideration of any management changes that mighty be required from 1 October for 2018. We submit that, other than aligning the deemed value for SWA 3 with the agreed current port price, consideration of any further changes to the deemed value rates for SWA 3 should be deferred until after the stock assessment has been completed and the SWA 3 TACC been set, based on this information.

DWG advises that SWA 3 quota owners do not support MPI’s proposal to increase deemed value rates for SWA 3 from 1 October 2016. They do support the reduction of the annual deemed value from $1.22/kg to $0.57/kg and the setting of the interim at 90% of this annual level.

~~Regards~~

~~George Clement Chief Executive Deepwater Group Ltd~~

~~Deepwater Group Ltd – s 9(2)(a) 30~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Deepwater Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6011~~

~~Email: [email protected]~~

~~Tena koi~~

~~DRAFT Submission from Te Ohu Kaimoana on review of Deepwater stocks for 2016 – 17~~

~~Introduction~~

1. This submission from Te Ohu Kaimoana responds to the Ministry for Primary Industries’ consultation papers on the review of management controls for the following deep-water fisheries:  squid jig (SQU1J)  jack mackerel (JMA3)  barracouta (BAR5)  rubyfish (RBY3)  scampi (SCI2).

~~2. For the most part, we support the submission made by the Deepwater Group. We are aware that quota holders have different views on the options for JMA3.~~

~~3. A draft of this submission, which contains a short summary of the issues identified by MPI, has been circulated to iwi for comment and has received responses of support.~~

~~SQU1J~~

~~4. MPI proposes three options for SQU1J:~~

~~Options TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources (tonnes) of mortality Option 1 50,242 50,212 10 10 10 (status quo) Option 2 10,030 10,000 10 10 10 Option 3 5,030 5,000 10 10 10~~

TE OHU KAI MOANA TRUSTEE LIMITED Level 4 | Revera House Phone 64 4 931 9500 Trustee for the Māori Fisheries Trust 48 Mulgrave Street Fax: 64 4 931 9518 Protecting Māori fisheries assets for future generations PO Box 3277 Email: [email protected] Wellington | New Zealand Web: www.teohu.maori.nz

5. SQU1J is a squid fishery based on a particular fishing method – jig fishing. This fishery covers the same area and targets the same species as the SQU1T fishery which is based on the trawl fishing method.

6. While the TACC for SQU1J is 50,212t, the capacity of industry to harvest under SQU1J has reduced. MPI notes the current TACC is based on historical catches achieved during the early 1980s when over 200 squid jigging vessels were active in the fishery. Since 1994/95, SQU1J catch levels and effort has decreased and have never exceeded 35,000 tonnes.

7. Since 2003/4, the highest catches were 8981t (2004/05) and 5844t (2005/06). MPI notes that since 2006/07 a maximum of 5 vessels have operated in the fishery. During that time catches have ranged between 0 – 5% of the TACC with the highest catch at 2,278 in 2006/07.

8. MPI comments the restriction on FCVs in New Zealand waters came into force in May 2016 and will make it difficult for vessels such as squid jiggers wishing to operate on a seasonal basis to operate in New Zealand. We wish to record Te Ohu’s efforts to work with the government to find a solution that would prevent the problems identified on some FCVs but would allow suitable vessels to enter New Zealand to harvest fisheries where the use of local vessels is not an option.

9. While MPI notes there is not a sustainability issue, a reduction of the TACC to 5,000t aligns with the practical reality facing this fishery. For one thing, quota owners are paying levies based on a TACC of 50,000t for which they are receiving no benefit.

10. Given the negligible catch in this fishery, Te Ohu supports Option 3: a reduction of the TACC to 5000 tonnes. Should it be possible to increase harvesting effort in this fishery at some time in future we propose MPI be prepared to respond quickly to proposals for any increase that might be needed to match a growth in harvesting capacity.

11. The current difficulties in obtaining harvesting capacity for SQU1J raise questions about how quota holders might generate benefits from this fishery while restricted to fishing using jig vessels. The Deepwater Group has recommended in their submission that discussions be instigated with quota owners on options for amalgamating SQU1J and SQU1T into a single QMA for “SQU1”. In principle, amalgamating the two QMAs into one and removing the fishing method classification would bring the management of squid into line with the all quota management areas are established and managed: that is, on the basis of the biology, not fishing method. It would allow quota holders to use a range of fishing methods for squid.

12. One of the challenges facing quota holders will be reaching agreement on how shares in the new SQU1 would be allocated. We note that that allocation to iwi of settlement quota in these fisheries varies. SQU1J is classified under the Maori Fisheries Act as an “inshore” stock and allocated on a coastline basis, while SQU1T has been classified as a “deep-water” stock and allocated on a population basis. These differences in classification are based the different depths at which fishing takes place using the different methods.

~~13. At the same time, to provide greater flexibility for all quota owners on how squid is harvested, options for amalgamating these two QMAs should be explored. We have no~~

objection to the proposal that DWG and MPI initiate discussions with quota owners during 2016 - 17 on options for amalgamating SQU1J and SQU1T. However, we note that efforts have been made previously without success.

~~BAR 5~~

~~14. MPI proposes the following options for BAR5:~~

~~Options TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources (tonnes) of mortality Status quo 7,475 7,470 2 3 0 Option 1 7,625 7,470 2 3 150 Option 2 8,370 8,200 2 3 165 Option 3 9,470 9,280 2 3 185~~

~~15. BAR 5 is a target fishery and is also caught as bycatch in other fisheries such as the squid, jack mackerel and warehou fisheries.~~

16. MPI notes that there is agreement in the Deepwater Fisheries Assessment Working Group that the abundance of this stock may have increased. While there is no stock assessment for BAR5, the 2016 catch per unit effort (CPUE) analysis indicates that the CPUE remains high. In recent years the catches have regularly exceeded the TACC since it was reduced in 1889 – 99.

~~17. MPI considers the high CPUE will likely support increased utilisation and there will be little risk to the stock in the short term given the steady recruitment to the fishery over the past decade.~~

~~18. Te Ohu supports option 3 – a TACC increase from 7,470 to 9,820 tonnes providing MPI continues to collect age composition data and monitor the CPUE as an index of stock abundance.~~

~~RBY 3~~

~~19. MPI proposes the following options for RBY 3:~~

~~Options TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources (tonnes) of mortality Option 1 3 3 0 0 0 (status quo) Option 2 16 15 0 0 1 Option 3 32 30 0 0 2~~

20. RBY3 was introduced into the QMS in 1998 with a nominal TACC of 3 tonnes. Between then and 2013/14, the average annual catch from this stock was 1.1 tonnes. In the last two fishing years however, reported catch was 14.3 tonnes and 29 tonnes respectively. MPI

~~comments this is likely due to increased fishing effort for related species such as redbait for which rubyfish is a bycatch.~~

21. MPI proposes three options including the status quo, and increases to the TAC/TACC of 16/15 tonnes and 32/30 tonnes respectively which includes small allowances for other sources of fishing related mortality. 22. MPI considers the options to increase the TACC to be modest and unlikely to cause a sustainability risk. In combination with proposed changes to the deemed value rates, they consider incentives for fishers to correctly report catches would be retained.

~~23. Te Ohu supports Option 3 to increase the TACC from 3 tonnes to 30 tonnes.~~

~~SCI2~~

~~Options TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources (tonnes) of mortality Option 1 140 133 0 0 7 (status quo) Option 2 161 153 0 0 8 Option 3 182 173 0 0 9~~

24. MPI reports that new information on this scampi fishery estimates the biomass to be 101% of B0 (unfished biomass) which is well above the default management target of 40% B0. Aside from the status quo, MPI proposes two options to increase the TAC/TACC. Under Option 2, the TAC would be increased to 161 tonnes with a TACC of 153 tonnes. Under Option 3 the TAC would be increased to 182 tonnes with a TACC of 173 tonnes. MPI notes that in all scenarios the biomass is projected to remain well above the management target of 40% B0. MPI does not propose to increase the TACC to the level at which it was set when it was introduced to the QMS (200 tonnes) as the TACC was subsequently halved due to sustainability concerns in 2011 – 12.

25. Te Ohu fully supports an increase in the TAC/TACC. Te Ohu is aware that some iwi consider increases in this fishery should be staged to provide for more stability in the longer term, and support Option 2. This is an approach Te Ohu has supported in other fisheries such as the hoki fishery to ensure that long term catches in key fisheries are stable from a biological and economic point of view.

~~JMA3~~

~~26. MPI proposes the following options for JMA 3:~~

Options TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources (tonnes) of mortality Option 1 18,000 17,610 20 20 350 (status quo) Option 2 9,000 8,780 20 20 180 Option 3 7,500 7,310 20 20 150 Option 4 6,000 5,840 20 20 120

27. New Zealand’s jack mackerel fisheries consist of three species that are managed together. Until the mid-1980s only two jack mackerel species were harvested however a third species, T murphyi began to be included in catches. It has a wider distribution than the other two species and is found across much of the South Pacific between South America and Australia. MPI notes that over a period of 5 – 6 years from the mid-1980s, there was a “rapid invasion” of the species which became distributed all around New Zealand. Between the late 1980s and mid-1990s, the TACC for JMA3 was increased from 2,700 to the current 18,000, largely in response to the arrival of T murphyi.

28. MPI notes that catches began to increase from the late 1980s onwards peaking at 20,000 tonnes in the mid-90s. However, since 2000/01 catch has not exceeded 5,000 tonnes. We agree that given the sustained period of reduced catches, due almost entirely to the decrease in abundance of T. murphyi, it is logical that having increased the JMA3 TCC in response to the increase in abundance of T murphyi, the TAC should now be reviewed in response to the prolonged period of decreased abundance.

29. In the wider South Pacific T. murphyi is managed by the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO). A stock assessment carried out by SPRFMO in 2014 shows the species was 15% B. MPI considers that given the low levels of the species in the South Pacific maintaining a catch limit that was set at the peak of the species abundance is not appropriate.

30. MPI does not propose to reduce the TAC to pre 1993/94 levels (2,700 tonnes) because of the continued persistence of T. murphyi and the fact it is the dominant species in JMA 3. There is no information to suggest sustainability concerns with the two native species at current catch levels however if the current 18,000 tonnes were to be taken concerns could arise in relation to these species.

31. We are aware of different views amongst quota owners on whether the TACC should be retained at 18,000 and reviewed again once a CPUE analysis and stock assessment has been carried out. Te Ohu considers that a decrease in the TACC can be justified in the short term.

32. There is a number of issues to consider as to how much of a reduction is warranted. One is the uncertainty as to whether there is one single large stock of T. murphyi across the South Pacific, the assessment carried out by SPRFMO and whether the species in New Zealand is following the same biomass trajectory. We are aware that Sealord considers the stock in New Zealand is not following the same trajectory. In some cases, they have experienced large catches of T. murphyi.

~~33. Another issue to consider is the cost of levies based on a TACC that is not being caught.~~

34. Te Ohu considers the TACC should be reduced by 50% consistent with Option 2, pending the outcome of a CPUE analysis and stock assessment, or clear evidence of a further influx of T. murphyi into New Zealand’s EEZ in the future.

~~35. If you have any questions or matters to clarify please feel free to contact me.~~

~~Nakul no, an~~

~~Kirsty Woods Principal Analyst~~

~~SUBMISSION ON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT CHANGES FOR THE 2016/17 FISHING YEAR~~

~~Introduction~~

1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the consultation papers on fisheries management decisions for the 2016/17 fishing year. 2. Fisheries Inshore New Zealand Ltd (Fisheries Inshore) is the Sector Representative Entity for inshore finfish, pelagic and tuna fisheries in New Zealand. Its role is to deal with national issues on behalf of the sector and to work directly with, and behalf of, its quota owners, fishers and affiliated sector representative organisations. Its key outputs are:  developing appropriate policy frameworks, processes and tools to assist the sector to manage inshore, pelagic and tuna fishstocks more effectively  minimising fishing interactions with protected species and the associated ecosystems  working positively with other fishers and users of marine space where we carry out our harvesting activities

3. Collectively, Fisheries Inshore shareholders own more than 51% of the quota in 187 (of 239) inshore, pelagic and tuna stocks and have shareholdings in the remaining inshore stocks. This equates to approximately 80% of the inshore finfish sector by value and volume. 4. The focus of this submission is primarily the paper titled “Review of Management Controls for the Bluenose Fishery (BNS 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8) in 2016” (MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/16). We also make comment on deemed value rates in the final section of this paper.

5. Members of Fisheries Inshore hold the majority of quota shares in the five BNS stocks in question (Table 1). Furthermore, Fisheries Inshore has contracted scientific analyses in the last three years that has contributed to the management of these BNS fisheries. That research has been funded by both Fisheries Inshore members and quota owners currently outside Fisheries Inshore.

~~Table 1: BNS quota held by members of Fisheries Inshore and non-members contributing to BNS research~~

~~BNS 1 BNS 2 BNS 3 BNS 7 BNS 8~~

~~Fisheries Inshore members 76% 80% 82% 63% 97%~~

~~Contributing non-members 19% 17% 12% 13% 2%~~

~~Total 95% 97% 94% 76% 99%~~

~~6. Fisheries Inshore endorses the submissions made by Southern Inshore Fisheries Management Company on SNA7 and JDO7 as they have the mandate to represent the views of those quota owners.~~

~~The big picture~~

7. The primary matters addressed in the consultation paper are TACs and allowances for five BNS stocks. To a great extent those management settings are peripheral to a more important issue: how to manage inshore fishstocks. 8. In Fisheries Inshore’s submission on the Operational Review of the Fisheries Act, we set out our view of the shortcomings in the current management approach and suggested ways to improve fisheries management. 9. In short, implementation of the existing management framework has not kept pace with the demands for fisheries management, for example:  28% of landings come from stocks that have no assessed status

~~Page 1 of 12~~

 No inshore stocks have documented, stock-specific management criteria that direct fisheries research1  TACCs of most stocks have never been reviewed since entering the QMS  On average, the TACCs of only six of c. 200 inshore fishstocks are reviewed each year2 10. As a consequence of not putting in place well-specified, bespoke yet appropriately-pragmatic management plans, the management system is slow to respond (or not responsive at all). This may result in foregone value, may risk the sustainability of stocks and does not result in optimal service provision. This neither grows, nor protects, New Zealand fisheries. 11. To improve the performance of our fisheries—for customary, commercial and recreational fishers—we need better-defined management objectives, and pragmatic harvest strategies that result in more appropriate and cost-effective fisheries monitoring. Fisheries Inshore has developed the concept of Management and Monitoring Plans (see BNS Plan in Annex One) to allow for better-specified management objectives, more responsive management and more effective and efficient fisheries services. 12. MPI has acknowledged some of the shortcomings mentioned above and has expressed some support for the concept of Management and Monitoring Plans. That being the case, quota owners were dismayed that despite acknowledging issues and seemingly endorsing the concept of Management and Monitoring Plans, MPI did not opt to support and refine the BNS Management and Monitoring Plan. 13. In the consultation paper, MPI make reference to this work as follows: “Given the value of the bluenose fishery, MPI considers that there would be benefits in doing further work to determine the best way to manage and monitor bluenose over the longer term to achieve the rebuild objectives. For example, in recent years the industry has led investigation into the potential application of a management procedure (MP) to provide decision rules and greater certainty. MPI would like to continue work in this area and considers that an MP could be available to inform a review in 2017.” (Emphasis added) 14. Bluenose quota owners have invested in precisely the work MPI reference in the excerpt above: a programme of CPUE analyses, catch sampling to improve vital information gaps, management procedure evaluation, commitment to annual updates and five-yearly reviews of that management procedure. Rather endorse and refine that work, MPI has retreated to the very system of management that has demonstrably failed to deliver both government objectives and those desired by the industry.

15. The apparent reason for MPI’s position is that MPI has unilaterally determined what the rebuild target and rate will be (see emphasis in excerpt above). This is based on default policy settings that are simply guidance, the adherence to which undermines both better future management for inshore fisheries and their economic prosperity. 16. Fisheries Inshore considers that adopting the BNS Management and Monitoring Plan is simply an objectively better way to manage these fisheries. Justification for this comment follows, along with the rationale for the Minister adopting this approach.

~~Better management~~

17. MPI’s support for the BNS work conducted by industry is appreciated and significant progress has been made in recent years. The fishery is rebuilding. There is a significant alignment of views. 18. To illustrate the point we highlight the following statement from page 11 of consultation paper: “Industry and MPI are interested in the application of MPs as they have specific advantages. MPs provide a greater degree of management responsiveness through the use of decision rules, which in turn can provide greater certainty that management objectives are met.”

1 Although we acknowledge the progress made on the SNA1 Plan. 2 While we acknowledge that capacity issues will limit the number of changes that can be advanced in any year, pragmatic changes to the decision-making processes and more specific management will assist.

~~Page 2 of 12~~

19. We support that statement but encourage MPI to go further and explicitly endorse and implement the existing MP. It is unfortunate that MPI’s support has recently faltered rather than strengthened to result in implementing better management.

~~FINZ Management and Monitoring Plan~~

20. The MP is the core of the Management and Monitoring Plan; in summary:  The MP is designed to maintain the rebuilding trajectory to target biomass  The TACC would be reduced if the rebuild is not maintained

 The rebuild in the MP uses a target of 35% B0 in 30 years 21. Running the MP consists of the following processes:  Every January the fishery overview is updated  Every year until 2018/19 the MP is run and TACCs adjusted accordingly  Every year the until 2017/18 the catch sampling of BLL fisheries is conducted  In 2016/17 the patterns in catch at length for 2014/15 and 2015/16 are examined and a decision made about whether to age otoliths as an input into the next iteration of the MP  During February–May 2019 the MP is updated using the latest information and implemented from 2019/20 22. As can be seen in Figure 1, the MP will ensure that the index remains on the dashed blue line that represents the rebuild trajectory. This will result in stock rebuild and provides the ability to continually monitor progress and to adjust TACCs accordingly. As the process matures, the additional information collected as part of the Management and Monitoring Plan will provide increased precision and increased certainty that the rebuild is progressing as planned. 23. This represents a comprehensive management regime for these BNS fisheries and is perhaps the most sophisticated approach currently in place for any inshore finfish stock.

~~Figure 1: CPUE index as an output of the BNS management procedure and the rebuilding trajectory that will result as part of implementation.~~

24. This is contrasted with the assessment approach relied upon by MPI since 2011. That used a relatively rudimentary stock assessment, including a deterministic recruitment assumption, and proposed to simply reduce the TACCs to 620 tonnes and collect little or no further information. This is akin to “laissez faire management” and sits in stark contrast to the approach preferred by industry to invest in better information and take an active role in rebuilding the stock in a manner that allows for economic opportunity and the associated benefits for New Zealand. 25. MPI’s reluctance to endorse the Management and Monitoring Plan appears to rest on one small difference of view; the rebuild target and timeframe. MPI has adopted a default rebuild to 40% B0 in 26 years, whereas quota owners support 35% B0 in 30 years.

~~Page 3 of 12~~

26. One could argue that these differences are somewhat immaterial given the decadal timeframes involved and inherent uncertainty in the science. Acting upon assumed precision in current biomass estimates and projections results in significant costs for quota owners and fishers simply for the purpose of meeting theoretical targets. The industry will accept the impact of TACC reductions; that is part of operating in the seafood industry. However, it is vital that those reductions are made pursuant to a Management and Monitoring Plan that allows industry to understand and support the necessary changes. Providing certainty is paramount and MPI’s relatively sudden decision to conduct further analysis and rush into TACC changes has not engendered confidence. 27. We suggest that there are significant benefits in adopting the established Management and Monitoring Plan in preference to the Options set out in the consultation paper.

~~Benefits of Management and Monitoring Plan~~

28. Fisheries Inshore appreciates that what is proposed in the Management and Monitoring Plan is different to management and monitoring approaches that have historically been used for inshore fisheries. As such, clear rationale is useful to allow consideration of this new initiative.

29. First, the MP will rebuild the fishery. The stock is thought to be around the default soft limit of 20% B0 (the mid-point of model estimates being 22% B0) and the MP is specifically designed to ensure that the biomass rebuilds to a target level (Figure 1). 30. Second, the MP is more responsive to change. Rather than setting a TACC relatively infrequently, the MP allows for annual analysis of information, application of the MP and the potential to adjust TACCs up or down annually. 31. Third, the MP increases certainty. Annual review of the MP allows managers to remain certain that the fishery is continuing to rebuild, and also allows for more informed decisions to be made about whether to vary the speed of the rebuild by adjusting the TAC. If such an MP had been available a decade ago, it is very unlikely the stock would have reached the recent nadir that we are rebuilding from. In a related point we also note that MPI has considered the use of interim targets in more popular finfish species as a way of rebuilding and reassessing progress toward long-term objectives. 32. Fourth, it grows the information base. As part of implementing the Management and Monitoring Plan and the associated MP, representative catch sampling has been, and continues to be, undertaken to collect length frequency data and otoliths. This will allow for better estimates of recruitment and other important parameters and thereby provide greater precision about the status of the stock. This is consistent with desire of MPI and Industry to move more inshore fisheries from low information stocks to higher information stocks. 33. A related point is that re-running the 2011 model at short notice this year without those additional data meant that the benefit of that work was not available, incorporating that information may help to resolve one of the major sources of uncertainty that MPI identified in the current model as stated on page 214 of the 2016 Plenary (i.e. “Deterministic recruitment is assumed; variations in year class strengths are not estimated”). It is irrational to identify that major source of uncertainty, choose not to use the information that is being collected to resolve that uncertainty, and instead propose management action that may result fewer or less comprehensive data being collected thereby perpetuating the uncertainty identified. 34. While this additional data collection can be conducted without adopting an MP, the work done to date has been funded directly by industry and demonstrates that when certainty of management exists and fisheries remain economically productive, there is more likely to be investment in data acquisition to the benefit of the fishery. This represents the fifth advantage to the approach proposed.

~~Minister’s considerations~~

35. We submit that the advantages set out above of adopting industry’s preferred option outweigh the costs that would be imposed by Options 2 or 3 in MPI’s consultation paper. Further, nothing in industry’s response prevents MPI from increasing the speed of stock rebuild in the future, that option becomes more tenable once an MP has been accepted and adopted and is reviewed periodically as proposed by quota owners (currently planned for review and implementation from 2019/20).

~~Page 4 of 12~~

~~36. As set out above, the rebuild trajectory is designed to rebuild the stock to 35% B0 within 30 years. This~~

~~departs from the default target of 40% B0 in 26 years that is a guideline expressed in the Harvest Strategy Standard Operational Guidelines for a low productivity stock.3~~

37. While the Harvest Strategy Standard sets out a valuable framework for this type of consideration, the touchstone is always the Fisheries Act. Without taking an overly legalistic approach, or diminishing the value of the Harvest Strategy Standard, it is important to consider the Act to provide the wider context. 38. Section 13 of the Act states that the Minister shall set a TAC that enables the biomass of any stock that is below BMSY to be altered in a way and at a rate that will result in the stock being restored to or above BMSY (having regard to the interdependence of stocks; and within a period appropriate to the stock, having regard to the biological characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions affecting the stock). 39. Further, section 13(3) states that when considering the way and rate of rebuild, the Minister shall have regard to such social, cultural, and economic factors as he considers relevant. Clearly this provides some flexibility for the Minister and he is not constrained by a formulaic application of policy guidelines. 40. The flexibility in the Act allows the Minister to select the MP that is set out in the Management and Monitoring Plan after having regard to social, cultural, and economic factors. This may include the desire to ensure the fishery remains economically viable and to provide for continued revenue, employment and investment in better information that will generally improve the performance of the fishery (as expressed in paragraphs 28–34 above). 41. Ultimately the target and rebuild rate are decisions for the Minister. However, we consider there is a compelling argument to be made for adopting the MP when the factors set out above are considered. 42. Adopting this approach is particularly persuasive when there is no countervailing sustainability risk against which to balance these utilisation opportunities. Industry’s view is that applying the attached Management and Monitoring Plan will result in a better managed fishery and will set a valuable example that will lead to improvements in other inshore fish stocks. It is rare that a management decision can simultaneously meet both purposes of the Fisheries Act: to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. This is such a case and that opportunity should not be missed in favour of rigid application of policy guidelines.

~~Social, cultural and economic factors~~

43. Social, cultural and economic factors are difficult to estimate and the consultation paper provides some suggested impacts by computing the value of catch based on port price and export price. Actual impacts are of course more difficult to quantify as they vary depending on the specific nature of fishing operations. 44. In discussions within the commercial sector as part of preparing this submission, one major quota owner noted that in FMAs 1 and 2, BNS vessels are usually a combination of bottom and surface longline or solely bottom longline. As in most fisheries, vessels target fish seasonally and are therefore a viable economic unit as long as they can continue to access an appropriate ACE package of various species all year round. Some vessels use BNS as a valuable bycatch, or a stop gap that allows that vessel to remain viable. A reduction in BNS ACE provides the real possibility that gaps appear in the annual catch plan of vessels and thereby undermines the economic viability of that vessel for all fisheries in which it engages. 45. The impact is more straightforward for those vessels that target a significant quantum of BNS. TACC reductions as proposed will have a direct impact. The same quota owner identified four vessels that have caught 100%, 84%, 68% and 46% BNS respectively in the current fishing year. These vessels will either sell up or have to change to another type of fishing.

46. While it may sound simple to change to other species, there are inherent difficulties that mean this may not be practically or economically viable. These include lack of ACE, geographic limitations or lack of specific expertise in a new fishery. 47. A second major quota owner noted that a 20% TACC reduction would probably result in loss of one of their current three full-time fishermen with $250–500k capital invested in vessel as well as job losses for

3 It is notable that the 2015 Plenary records that there is no formally-established target for BNS and deterministic BMSY is estimated to be 15-25% B0 (p 200). Also notable is that the estimate of BMSY has been deleted from the 2016 Plenary (p 212).

~~Page 5 of 12~~

~~the skipper and two deck hands. In terms of lost revenue, this was estimated to equate to a minimum of $360 k per annum.~~

48. Other fishing entities will suffer similar losses depending on the size and nature of their operations. 49. As identified in paragraph 42 above, while such economic losses may be a necessary part of commercial fishing, there is no sustainability imperative that requires these losses to be incurred. The opposite is true, there exists a better management regime that ensures sustainability and provides for utilisation. This accords with MPI’s stated objective of Growing and Protecting New Zealand.

Specific views 50. As is apparent from this submission, the benefits associated with the Management and Monitoring Plan are the primary concern of quota owners. TACC reductions are not currently necessary to deliver those outcomes—although it is accepted they may be in the future pursuant to that Plan. Fisheries Inshore canvassed the views of all BNS quota owners and there was a strong and unanimous view that neither Option 2 nor Option 3 could be supported. 51. However, quota owners were not in universal agreement about how to proceed. There was support from some for Option 1, while the vast majority voiced support for an interim Option 1a (discussed below). Such a difference of views is to be expected given the large variety of operators across these five stocks, the scale of those operations and relative importance of BNS to them (Table 2). This difference of views should therefore not be interpreted as displaying disunity in industry; it is simply a commercial reality. Where quota owners are united is in their willingness to invest in science and management as is demonstrated by the commitment to this work illustrated in Table 1. 52. As a sign of our commitment to sustainability and the Management and Monitoring Plan, BNS quota owners funded further work to update the MP based on data up until 30 April 2016. This analysis would ordinarily be conducted after the 2015/16 fishing year had finished and so include all data from that year and the results implemented from 1 October 2017. 53. That partial analysis included about 75% of the expected data so it a reasonable approximation of the full fishing year. The CPUE amalgamated index has increased very slightly since last year but is essentially flat (see the red line in Figure 2).

~~Figure 2: Interim CPUE indices including the analysis of partial data from 1 October 2015 to 30 April 2016~~

~~Page 6 of 12~~

54. The MP was then run incorporating this information and the TACC estimated (that would apply from 1 October 2017 and assuming the CPUE for the partial analysis was similar at the end of the fishing year). This analysis showed that the CPUE index had dipped slightly below the rebuild trajectory and as a result a reduction in the TACCs would be warranted (from 1 October 2017 and assuming the CPUE index for the partial analysis was similar at the end of the fishing year) (Figure 3).

~~Figure 3: CPUE index and rebuild trajectory based on partial data from 1 October 2015 to 30 April 2016~~

55. The outcome of operating the MP would be a combined TACC reduction of 62 tonnes to 1,038 tonnes. As mentioned, quota owners are committed to sustainable fishing and committed to the Management and Monitoring Plan. To demonstrate that commitment an intermediate Option is proposed which is to reduce BNS TACCs in line with the MP. 56. In doing so BNS quota owners seek a commitment from MPI to support the continued implementation of the Management and Monitoring Plan including the ongoing catch sampling. The MP would then run for two further fishing years and TACCs adjusted as necessary. In early 2019, the additional information from the catch sampling programme would be used to re-evaluate the MP which could include reconsideration of the biomass target and rebuilding timeframe, but based on a more precise MP. 57. Option 1a has much to recommend it in that it delivers certainty of rebuild, the opportunity for a more precise MP and management in the future, and does nothing to foreclose the possibility of altering the rebuild trajectory in 2019 based on that improved information.

~~Table 2: Preference of quota holders for Option 1 and Option 1a~~

~~BNS 1 BNS 2 BNS 3 BNS 7 BNS 8~~

~~Total quota shares voted 84,502,243 89,140,173 79,197,048 68,903,712 94,337,886~~

~~Shares voted for Option 1 10,900,100 14,406,088 446,531 0 0~~

~~Shares voted for Option 1a 73,602,143 74,734,085 78,750,517 68,903,712 94,337,962~~

~~% vote for Option 1 12.9% 16.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%~~

~~% vote for Option 1a 87.1% 83.8% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0%~~

~~Page 7 of 12~~

Allowances 58. Fisheries Inshore notes that MPI is not considering any adjustment to the allowances for recreational or customary fishers. MPI notes that the best estimate of recreational harvest is 46 tonnes against an allowance of 63 tonnes and then goes on to state that “MPI considers that at this time there is no new information to suggest recreational allowances should be changed” (page 7). It is unclear what new information would be necessary to implement any change in the recreational allowance. The statement implies some underlying policy position that is not made apparent in this, or any other, consultation paper. On the basis on the BNS consultation paper it would appear that MPI hold the view that it is appropriate not only to provide in full for recreational demand, but to provide more than that demand. 59. A similar flavour can be seen in the other consultation papers released as part of this sustainability round. In PAU7, all Options propose that 100% of the TAC reduction be applied to the TACC; the recreational allowance is unaffected. In SNA7, MPI propose a 50 tonne TACC increase and a 160 tonne increase in the recreational allowance. Whilst we accept that the Minister has some discretion to allocate the TAC among sectors, this is not unfettered and MPI’s approach to this important consideration is somewhat opaque. 60. Further, by not even consulting on any changes to allowances, MPI is tying the Minister’s hands. Section 21(2) requires the Minister to consult on TACC changes which inevitably also include the possibility of changes to the other allowances. By not considering or consulting on changes to allowances, MPI could be seen as making those allocation decisions on the Minister’s behalf. That is not the function of the executive, the Fisheries Act makes is plain that such decisions are for the Minister.

~~Deemed value rates~~

61. MPI proposes to review the deemed value rates of 18 finfish stocks (excluding the new LFE and SFE eel stocks). The RBY3, LFE and SFE reviews are considered appropriate as a consequence of TAC decisions and the remaining 17 stocks as a consequence of over-catch in 2014/15. 62. Of the other 17 stocks, only four—BCO3, LIN7, SWA3 and TAR2—have a history of regular over-catch. Other than for the 2014/15 year, catches for the other stocks have been within the available ACE. There is no need for MPI to review the deemed value rates for these stocks from a fisheries management perspective. The reviews consist of movements in the interim deemed values from generally 50% of the annual deemed value rate to 90% of the rate. There are no fisheries management issues giving rise to these adjustments. The adjustments are unnecessary tinkering with the only beneficiary being the Crown through the receipt of higher interim deemed values, should they be necessary. 63. At a time when MPI is only reviewing two other inshore stocks in addition to BNS, the diversion of resources to amend unnecessarily the interim deemed values is inappropriate.

~~Page 8 of 12~~

~~BNS 1, 2, 3, 7, 8~~

~~FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN~~

~~FISHERY OVERVIEW~~

~~30 BNS10  BNS is managed as six QMS stocks, which are assessed as a single~~

~~S BNS1~~

35 biological stock. For management purposes this biological stock is considered to include BNS 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8. BNS8 S BNS2 40 BNS7  BNS are taken primarily in target bottom longline fisheries. They

~~S are also commonly taken in LIN and HPB line fisheries, and in the 45 BYX (BNS 2, 3) and HOK (BNS 7) trawl fisheries.~~

~~BNS3 S~~

~~50 S 55 165 E 170 E 175 E 180 175 W~~

~~Page 9 of 12~~

~~MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE~~

 The overall TACC for BNS 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 is set using a Trajectory Status Adjustment Restricted (TSAR) management procedure (see Appendix) which defines a rebuild trajectory for CPUE, as a proxy for abundance. The rebuild trajectory was defined to be consistent with rebuild to 35% B0 within 30 years, or better.

~~ The value of an annual, smoothed, CPUE index is assessed annually in relation to the rebuild trajectory, and the overall TACC varied (if required) in order to maintain the required rebuild.~~

~~ The overall potential TACC is set as illustrated below: PotentialTACC 500 1000 1500 0~~

~~0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4~~

~~Ratio of CPUE to trajectory~~

~~ The actual overall TACC is not varied if the potential TACC is within 5% of the current TACC, and changes are limited to a maximum of 50% of the current TACC.~~

~~ The TACCs for BNS 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 are set by maintaining proportionality within the overall TACC.~~

~~ANNUAL MANAGEMENT CYCLE~~

~~ 15 Oct – Catch-effort data submitted to FishServe for fishing year ending 30 Sept~~

~~ 30 Mar – Updated MP index (rapid CPUE update) and diagnostics calculated, and proposed TACC for next fishing year calculated~~

~~ 15 Apr – 30 Jun – consultation on any proposed TACC change~~

~~ 1 Sep – Minister’s decision announced~~

~~ 1 Oct – updated TACC gazetted~~

~~Page 10 of 12~~

~~LATEST ANALYSES AND INFORMATION~~

~~ In 2013/14 the CPUE index, 푖̀푡, was 0.726.~~

~~ The TACC for 2015/16 is 1,110 t.~~

~~FOR FURTHER INFORMATION~~

~~ 2014: Assessment and management procedure evaluation (Bentley and Middleton, 2015)~~

~~ 2014: Management procedure implementation report (link)~~

~~ 2014: MPI stock assessment plenary (link)~~

~~FUTURE MONITORING AND RESEARCH~~

~~ Annually: fishery overview updated in January~~

~~ Annually until 2018/19: management procedure implementation~~

~~ Annually 2014/15 to 2017/18: catch sampling of BLL fisheries.~~

~~ Feb – May 2016: examine patterns in catch @ length in 2014/15, 2015/16. Consider value of ageing for upcoming management procedure evaluation.~~

~~ Feb - May 2019: updated management procedure evaluation, for implementation from 2019/20.~~

~~OTHER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION NEEDS~~

~~ When updating the management procedure for 2015/16 onwards, the level of the deemed value should be reviewed.~~

~~ Updated recreational harvest estimates, including charter vessels.~~

~~Page 11 of 12~~

~~APPENDIX – DETAILED MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE SPECIFICATION~~

~~ The required rebuild trajectory (푖̅푡) is defined by three control parameters, Initial (I), Slope (S) and~~

~~Target (T), with 푖̅푡 = 푚푖푛( 퐼 + 푆푡, 푇). For BNS, I = 0.6, S = 0.02, T = 1, and t is years since 2013/14.~~

~~ The TSAR management procedure is based on a smoothed CPUE index 푖̀푡, calculated as 푖̀푡 = 푖푡푅 +~~

~~푖̀푡−1(1 − 푅), with responsiveness parameter R = 0.675.~~

~~ Current status relative to the trajectory is the ratio of the smoothed CPUE to the trajectory: 푠푡 = 푖̀푡/푖̅푡~~

 The potential TACC for the following year is calculated as1110 × 푠푡, subject to a minimum TACC of 800 t, and a maximum of 1100 t. If the potential TACC differs from the current TACC by less than 5% of the current TACC, no change is made. Changes are limited to a maximum of 50% of the current TACC.

~~Page 12 of 12~~

~~48 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Graham Carter ~~Sent: Monday, 20 June 2016 11:28 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission for changes to SNA7~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Ministry for Primary Industries~~

~~P O Box 2526~~

~~Wellington 6011~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~Submission for changes to SNA7~~

~~1. Commercial fishing in the Sounds be completely banned.~~

~~2. Recreational in Sounds increased from 3 bag limit to 7 bag limit, and the remaining area within SNA7 stay same at 10.~~

3. Commercial trawling and set gill nets should be completely banned from SNA7 area, due to the fact that commercial fishers have threatened on Social Media to shoot and kill every single dolphin they see so that they can get their restricted areas back.

4. Commercial purse, dutch seining and long lining for export should be completely banned, with special concessions given for more suitable net systems like Karl Warr’s new cod end device for local trade only.

~~5. Gill netting and longlining for local trade should be granted special concessions in carefully selected areas for local trade only.~~

~~1 49 Graham~~

~~-- s 9(2) (a)~~

~~2 50 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Graham Beattie ~~Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2016 3:36 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: 2016/14 (PAU 7) Attachments: Review -PAU7.pdf~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Graham Beattie s 9(2)(a)~~

~~In response to consultation document 2016/14 pau 7 … I wish to register my support for Option 3~~

~~I am a recreational diver and have been diving the Marlborough coastal area from the early 1980’s. There has been a significant decline in paua abundance over that time.~~

There are now far greater numbers of recreational divers in the water than ever before and I have real concerns that the actual recreational take is far greater than current estimates. The recreational daily ‘bag’ of 10 fish per diver has been in place the entire 36 years I have been diving and I believe this is no longer appropriate.

~~Over that same period, the average ‘boat’ technology available to the average diver has dramatically improved, and the expanse of Marlborough coast suddenly become very small as a result.~~

~~I support option 3 but, in addition to this … I ask that you please reduce the recreational daily bag limit to 5 fish per day.~~

~~Thank you & regards, Graham Beattie~~

~~1 51 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Greg Goodall ~~Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 4:14 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Fw: Submission on Sna 7 Review.~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~To whom it may concern,~~

My name is Greg Goodall and I live at Tasman. I am a member of several Recreational fishing interest related organisations, including MPI’s Challenger Recreational Fishing Forum which appears to have been totally abandoned by the Ministry. That group’s recommendations were not sought in the formulation of this review and I suggest this inaction does MPI no credit.

Generations of my family have been resident in the Riwaka/ Motueka/ Nelson area since the 1850's and fishing locally for snapper has been an important family activity providing valued sustenance. For many years following the decimation of the fishery by the Commercial sector it was impossible for the public to reliably catch a family meal of snapper. Now that the fishery is finally and obviously displaying a recovery in progress it has yet to reach the abundance levels of my 1960's youth, despite what some Commercial sources would have you believe.

It is of concern to me that this Snapper 7 review and the increase proposed is primarily based on modelling, and not on comprehensive practical research such as a recent trawl survey. While acknowleging that the fishery is certainly rebuilding, I believe that there is very little, if any, evidence of continuing recruitment to the snapper biomass, and this should be of concern when proposing any large increase to the TAC.

~~Therefore I would like to see a more cautious approach to the proposed 25% TACC increase and suggest no more than 10%, similar to previous increases.~~

I consider it is commendable that MPI is prepared to recommend equal apportionment of the TAC between Commercial and Recreational. There have been reports that the Recreational sector has caught more fish than the Commercial allocation during the last year. This cannot be a bad thing for so many reasons including being a deserved reward following the Commecial sectors's earlier decimation of the fishery.

I acknowlege and have no objection to the Commercial sector's ongoing legal right to a share of the Snapper 7 fishery, but I believe that the fishery should not be run for their purposes alone, as seems to have been the case even in recent years.

~~I do however question the predominant method of catch by the Commercial sector. There is ample scientific evidence of the adverse affects of trawling on the benthic habitat.~~

There is now convincing reseach (NZ Marine Research Foundation 2016) that Recreational fishing activity has significant value to both the local and national economy, far beyond that recognised in the past. The Commercial sector have long advocated the economic value of the Snapper 7 fishery to the local and national economy. However the Snapper 7 Commercial fishery is really a very minor component of New Zealand's total. Should the numbers be properly crunched, it is highly likely that the local Recreational snapper catch is much more economically valuable than that of The Commercial sector.

~~Of the two options presented in this review I prefer neither but I do acknowlege that the second option goes some way towards recognising a proper share for the Recreational sector.~~

~~1 52 I also wholeheartedly endorse the submission from Tasfish Inc.~~

Additionally the composition of the Sna 7 Working Group is of real concern to me. While there is the usual representation of MPI and Commercial interests, there appears to be no Iwi representative and certainly no recognized Recreational advocacy group representative. Of those who may purport to be representing the Receational sector, none have the mandate of any long established local or national recreational advocacy group, and also could be labelled Marlborough Sounds‐centric. There is no representative from the Tasman‐ Golden Bay area where the vast bulk of the snapper are caught. I contend that any ongoing considerations of changes to Snapper 7 regulations should include properly balanced and experienced recreational representation . One cannot but notice that the Commercial sector is represented by the same two persons (and fair enough) who have for many years fulfilled that role in all the previous MPI Sna 7 and Fish Plan discussions. Where then are the recreational representatives who also participated in those same processes? As far as I am aware none of them were asked to be part of this review and one can only presume this omission to be deliberate.

~~I submitt that any ongoing considerations of changes to Snapper 7 regulations should include properly balanced and experienced Recreational representation.~~

~~Yours sincerely,~~

~~Greg Goodall s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Sent from Mail for Windows 10~~

~~2 53 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Jacqui and Ian Bilbrough ~~Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2016 3:13 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: PAU 7 & KAH 8~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Dear Sir / Madam~~

~~I fully support the reduction of commercial take for both these fisheries.~~

~~I am / have been a Landowner in Tory Channel since 1998 and am a regular recreational fisher in this area .~~

In my opinion the pressure applied to the paua stocks by commercial diving is excessive. I regularly see exposed paua ( easy to find ) which are marginally undersize , only to return some months later to find them all gone. I believe the commercial people are farming them and monitoring the stocks to their advantage. Are they helping the resource when they don’t leave any breeding stock ?

~~Similarly, with the kahawhai, we now only catch the small 1 – 2lb fish, where are the fighters which were prevalent 15 yrs ago , weighing some 5‐6 lbs ?~~

~~Regards~~

~~Ian Bilbrough~~

~~1 54~~

~~Maru Samuels General Manager Iwi Collective Partnership Auckland~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6140 Email: [email protected]~~

~~Tēnā koe,~~

~~REVIEW OF FISHERIES SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES FOR 1 OCTOBER 2016~~

INTRODUCTION Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on proposed changes to the sustainability measures and other management controls for selected fishstocks for 1 October 2016. Our submission provides feedback on the following four fishstocks:  Squid Jig (SQU1J)  Jack Mackerel (JMA3)  Scampi (SCI2).  Bluenose (BNS)

THE IWI COLLECTIVE The Iwi Collective Partnership (Iwi Collective) was established in 2010 to improve, amongst other things, iwi participation in the sustainable management of New Zealand’s fisheries. The Iwi Collective represents 14 Iwi quota owners from throughout the North Island (refer Table 1). The various Iwi own quota for the fishstocks listed in paragraph 1 above, and the Iwi Collective manages the ACE derived from that quota.

Iwi Region Te Arawa Bay of Plenty Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty Ngai Te Rangi Bay of Plenty Whakatohea Bay of Plenty Ngati Awa Bay of Plenty Ngai Tai Bay of Plenty Ngati Manawa Bay of Plenty Ngati Ruanui Taranaki Nga Rauru Taranaki / Whanganui Taranaki Iwi Taranaki Te Rarawa Northland Ngati Porou Gisborne Te Aitanga a Mahaki Gisborne Rongowhakaata Gisborne Table 1: Iwi in the Collective Iwi Partnership

~~1 55~~

~~Review of Management Controls for Bluenose (BNS 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8)~~

~~Recommendation~~

~~The Iwi Collective managed 22,433 kgs of Bluenose ACE for the 1 October 2015 season.~~

~~The Iwi Collective believes there are sufficient grounds to support Option 1 which is retention of the status quota, however, we support a slight reduction under a new option - Option 1a.~~

~~Option 1a proposes a 100 tonne reduction in the BNS TACC from 1,100 to 1,000 tonnes. Option 1a promotes a smaller reduction than any of the other options proposed by the Ministry.~~

~~Background~~

MPI proposes three options to reduce the TACC for BNS as per Table 2 below. The BNS biomass is improving but there is a difference of opinion between the Ministry and the Industry on what the rebuild timeframes should be. The Ministry wants a faster rebuild time than the Industry.

Options (tonnes) TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources of mortality Option 1 (status quo) 1,195 1,100 9 63 23 Option 1a 1,095 1,000 9 63 23 Option 2 990 900 9 63 18 Option 3 704 620 9 63 12 Table 2: MPI Options

~~Option 1a is appropriate given the research and commitment that the industry has demonstrated over the past 5 years. It is also likely that the likely rebuilding and management action can be delayed.~~

 Since 2011 industry adopted a range of research programs to provide better scientific data for the assessment, and these results have indicated that previous management actions have at least halted the decline in bluenose stocks.

~~ With several years more CPUE data in the 2016 assessment, taking the more likely estimate of M around 0.09, we believe there is a clear signal of stock rebuilding with the CPUE data.~~

 Sealord would submit BNS3 is a by-catch when target fishing hoki and alfonsino and the blunt slashing of the TACC as proposed in options 2 and 3 in Sealords view overlooks the interdependence bluenose has with the utilisation of those key fisheries.

 We note one positive step in fisheries management of bluenose is the reduction in over catch of BNS3 by vessels target fishing and deeming of catch landed into the Chatham Islands, with the 2014-15 catch close to the TACC.

~~2 56~~

~~Review of Management Controls for Arrow Squid Jigging Fishery (SQU 1J)~~

~~Recommendation~~

~~The Iwi Collective managed 481,679 kgs of SQU 1J for October 2015 season, and a total Squid ACE holding of 2,667,379 kgs.~~

The Iwi Collective supports Option 3 which is a reduction in the SQU 1J TACC from 50,212 to 5,000 tonnes. Reducing the TACC better reflects actual catch and will provide economic savings to quota owners.

~~Background~~

~~MPI proposes three options to reduce the TACC for SQU 1J as per Table 3 below.~~

Options (tonnes) TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources of mortality Option 1 (status quo) 50,242 50,212 10 10 10 Option 2 10,030 10,000 10 10 10 Option 3 5,030 5,000 10 10 10 Table 3: MPI Options

We note and support the comments of DEEPWATER GROUP:  Acknowledge that there is no stock assessment for squid and that therefore the TACC is set at an arbitrary level, one informed more by consideration of allocation of economic access rather than sustainability considerations  Accept that annual catches in SQU 1J have been ~5% of the TACC since 2006-07  Accept that the TACC is unlikely to be caught in future years due to the restrictions now in place on FCV’s, which preclude ready access to suitable vessels capable of jigging in this fishery  Accept the proposal to reduce the TACC in order to reduce the impost of high levels of cost recovery levies on SQU1J quota owners. Support for Option 3 is provided on the bases that:  This TACC reduction will result in a reduction in cost recovery levies from SQU 1J quota owners for 2016-17 and future years  These cost reductions will not be reassigned by MPI to other deepwater fish stocks  During 2016-17, DEEPWATER GROUP and MPI will instigate discussions with quota owners on options for amalgamating SQU 1J and SQU 1T into a single QMA and TACC (i.e. ‘SQU 1’), which would not be method-specified and would be separate from SQU 6T  Without such an amalgamation or assurances on cost recovery reductions, SQU 1J quota owners seek discussions with MPI on appropriate future TACC level for SQU 1J, which will likely be greater than 5,000 tonnes.

~~3 57~~

~~Review of Management Controls for Jack Mackerel Fishery (JMA 3)~~

~~Recommendation The Iwi Collective managed 831,205 kgs of JMA 3 ACE for the October 2015 season.~~

The Iwi Collective support Option 1 which is to maintain the TACC at 17,610 tonnes factoring in first time allocations to Customary and Recreational. A stock assessment should be considered and action taken based on the results. We note DeepWater Group’s submission which advises that a stock assessment could be completed in time to inform a review prior to 1 October 2017.

~~Background MPI proposes four options to reduce the TACC for JMA 3 as per Table 4 below.~~

Options (tonnes) TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources of mortality Option 1 (status quo) 18,000 17,610 20 20 350 Option 2 9,000 8,780 20 20 180 Option 3 7,500 7,310 20 20 150 Option 4 6,000 5,840 20 20 120 Table 4: JMA3 Options

We note and support the views of DeepWater Group at this time, notably:  DWG advises that the majority of shareholders owning JMA 3 quota support a stock assessment being undertaken during 2016-17 before a TACC reduction is considered for JMA 3, noting that DWG is in discussion with MPI on the specifications and costs of doing so and that the cost is likely to be less than $40,000 for two CPUE analyses and stock assessments for each of JMA 3 and JMA 7. The JMA 3 stock assessment would be undertaken and completed in time to inform a management review prior to 1 October 2017.  Two shareholders prefer a more precautionary approach through a 50% TACC reduction effective from 1 October 2016 (i.e. MPI’s Option 1, a TACC reduction from 18,000 t to 9,000 t).  DWG notes the planned CPUE anlaysis and a stock assessments for each of JMA 3 and JMA 7 during 2016-17 is subject to MPI’s acceptance of the specifications and to Shareholders’ approval of the project and budget.  DWG further advises that, in the event the Minister decides to reduce the JMA 3 TACC, and should there subsequently be another influx of T. murphyi into New Zealand’s EEZ in the future, then the JMA TACCs should again be increased to enable utilisation of this transient resource.

~~4 58~~

~~Review of Management Controls for Scampi (SCI 2)~~

~~Recommendation The Iwi Collective managed 7,868 kgs of SCI 2 ACE during the October 2015 season.~~

~~The Iwi Collective supports Option 2 which is a 15% or 20 tonne increase from 133 to 153 tonne. This would be a conservative but sustainable increase that is likely to be maintained over time.~~

~~Background MPI proposes three options to increase the TACC for SCI 2 as per Table 5 below.~~

~~Options (tonnes) TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other sources of mortality Option 1 (status quo) 140 133 0 0 7 Option 2 161 153 0 0 8 Option 3 182 173 0 0 9 Table 5: MPI Options~~

~~We note and support the comments of DeepWater Group, notably:~~

 Acknowledge the new information esimates the SCI 2 biomass to be 101% B0 and therefore very likely (i.e. more than 90% probability) to be at or above the default management target of 40% B0.  Note that projections of stock sizes out for five years (i.e. out to 2021) based on constant annual catch levels of up to 200 tonnes, estimate the biomass will remain at or above 40% B0 (with 98-99% probability).  Note that five year projections of the stock size estimate that with a TACC of 173 tonnes, the biomass will remain above 40% B0 (with 99% probability).

~~CONCLUSION The Iwi Collective supports the submissions of Fisheries Inshore New Zealand, Te Ohu Kaimoana, Deepwater Group and Sealord, as well as any submissions made by our individual 14 Iwi Members.~~

~~We also support the submission and comments of Deepwater Group relating to Deemed Values.~~

~~Ngā mihi,~~

~~Maru Samuels General Manager Iwi Collective Partnership~~

~~m : 021723588 e : [email protected]~~

~~5 59~~

~~s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Contact; David Baker Jason Baker s 9( 2) (a)~~

~~To Inshore Fisheries Management, MPI~~

~~Regarding Review of Management Controls for the Paua 7 Fishery (PAU 7) in 2016 MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/14, the following is Saavid Diving Ltd’s submission on this discussion document .~~

Saavid Diving is a family owned and operated fishing Business owned by David and Sandra Baker and me Jason Baker, and my wife Sarah Perano. David started Diving for Paua in 1966 and I started in the fishery in 1989, so we have witnessed all of the ups and downs of the fishery since it was first commercially fished.

We are and have been the largest commercial Paua harvester in Pau7 for at least the last decade, catching between 30-40t/year. We make a point of spreading our catch effort into all areas of the Pau7 fishery and feel we have a very good understanding of what the state of the fishery is.

~~We see that what is needed is a TACC cut between option 2 and option 3 in the paper, this being a cut of 50%.~~

~~We have noticed a lot of changes to the fishery over the years, far too many to list here and with too many far reaching implications that have effect the state of the stock.~~

However one that we need to point out and that has had a marked impact on the fishery is the amount of recreational catch being caught. This has increase 10 -20 fold in the last ten years. We feel that without some kind off catch reduction being made in the recreational sector that the effectiveness and benefits to the stock of the catch reduction to the TACC will be greatly lessoned.

We strongly suggest that the recreational bag limit in Pau 7 be reduced to 6 per person. This would be in line with the bag limit in the Kaikoura area (Pau3) and would also make compliance easier in both areas due to them having the same limits. 60

~~We would also like to support the Paua Industry Council and Pauamac7’s Submissions on this document.~~

~~Regards,~~

~~Jason John Baker Antony David Baker~~

~~SAAVID DIVING LIMITED~~

~~61 Phil Appleyard President NZ Sport Fishing Council PO Box 207-012 Hunua 2254 [email protected]~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6011 [email protected]~~

~~9 July 2016~~

~~NZ Sport Fishing Council submission on the review of management controls for the John dory 7 fishery (JDO7) for 1 October 2016~~

Recommendations 1. The Minister varies current settings for John dory 7 to ensure fishing mortality is retained within the Total Allowable Catch, as follows: a. Increases the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) from 161 tonnes to 163 tonnes; b. Retains the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) at 150 tonnes; c. Increases the allowance for Maori customary non-commercial interests, from one to 2 tonnes; d. Increases the allowance for recreational interests, from two to 3 tonnes; and e. Retains the allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality, at 8 tonnes. 2. The Minister acknowledges that: a. A cautious approach needs to be taken for this highly variable JDO7 fishery; b. Despite periods of lower abundance, there has never been a TACC decrease, only increases in response to above average survey results; c. Increases in abundance of John dory on the west coast are not reflected in Tasman and Golden Bays, which are showing signs of overfishing; d. The current recreational allowance does not account for increasing recreational catch due to increasing abundance, or best available information; and e. The information on current levels of Maori customary catch is uncertain. 3. MPI work with all stakeholders in the JDO7 fishery to develop management targets and a harvest strategy.

NZ Sport Fishing Council - LEGASEA 4. The New Zealand Sport Fishing Council and our outreach LegaSea (the submitters) appreciate the opportunity to submit on the review of management controls for John dory 7. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) advised of their Discussion Paper on 10 June 2016 with submissions due by 11 July. Any changes will apply from 1 October 2016.

JDO7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 1 62 NZSFC involvement in marine management advocacy, research, education and alignment on behalf of our members and LegaSea supporters. www.legasea.co.nz

6. We are committed to ensuring that sustainability measures and environmental management controls are designed and implemented to achieve the Purpose and Principles of the Fisheries Act 1996, including “maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations…” [s8(2)(a) Fisheries Act 1996]

7. The submitters continue to object to the Ministry’s tight consultation timetable, in this instance, 21 working days. In our view this timeframe does not allow for adequate consultation, it is particularly offensive for non-commercial organisations such as ours that need to consult with a range of interests and volunteers. This is unacceptable consultation and, in our opinion most likely unlawful as per ss 12 and 13 of the Fisheries Act and as judged by the Court of Appeal1.

8. NZSFC representatives are available to discuss this submission in more detail if required. We look forward to positive outcomes from this review and would like to be kept informed of future developments. Our contact is Dave Lockwood, [email protected].

John dory 9. John dory are serial spawners, spawning more than once in a season. The eggs are large and stay near the surface for 12-14 days before hatching. Initially John dory grow rapidly, reaching 12 to 18cm after the first year. Females then grow larger than males. Females mature at 29 to 35cm. Males mature at 23 to 29cm. John dory are considered to have a maximum age of 12 years.

John dory 7 management 10. MPI is reviewing the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) and allowances for John dory 7 (JDO7). The commercial catch limit has been increased three times since 2003/04 and is currently at 150 tonnes (set in 2012/13).

11. Recreational harvest is most likely to have increased with abundance. Maori customary harvest is unknown. MPI is unable to quantify the level of fishing related mortality, but acknowledges there could be discarding to avoid deemed value payments.

~~12. The proposed options for the future management of JDO7 follows –~~

~~1 International Airport Ltd and Air New Zealand (CA 23/92, 73/92[1993] 1 NZLR 671). JDO7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 2 63~~

13. JDO7 was introduced into the Quota Management System (QMS) in 1986 and the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) was set at 70 tonnes (t). By 1992 the TACC had increased to 91 tonnes. It was increased again in 2004/05, to 114 t, and to 125 t in 2009/10. The current 150 t TACC was set in 2012/13. Although we note the MPI 2015 Plenary report states the TACC in 2013/14 was 151 t2.

~~14. MPI advises that most of the john dory catch is taken by bottom trawlers targeting flatfish (25%), barracouta (23%) and tarakihi (18%).~~

~~15. No minimum legal size (MLS) applies to john dory caught by commercial fishers so the Fisheries Act requires all captures to be landed.~~

16. There are a variety of customary area closures and controls applying to customary harvest in Area 7. MPI note there have been no customary authorisations issued in JDO7 and reported to MPI in the last five years.

17. Recreational fishers take john dory by rod and reel, spearfishing and set net. A minimum mesh size of 100mm applies to recreational nets. Recreational fishers can take john dory as part of their daily bag limit of 20 mixed species.

Future management 18. As submitters we are concerned there is no management strategy in place for john dory, aside from regular TACC increases. We submit there needs to be annual monitoring measures applied to JDO7.

19. We note the next trawl survey is planned for 2017 and it would be 2018 before any change is likely to apply to the TAC and TACC. This response timeframe is inadequate if a TACC increase is to apply from 1 October this year. Annual monitoring is essential because the 2015 trawl survey result cannot be used to predict what will happen over the next three years.

20. MPI are keen to project a modicum of responsiveness by saying that, “large fluctuations in stock biomass also mean management measures are required to rapidly reduce catches at times of persistent low recruitment”. However, we note that there have been years of low abundance in JDO7 yet there has never been a decrease in the TACC, only increases in response to higher survey results.

21. MPI note that john dory populations can fluctuate widely as a result of varying levels of recruitment. While there are some wide fluctuations in the standardised trawl Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE), there are many other variables that need eliminating before variations can be attributed to real changes in abundance. As noted in the discussion document, JDO7 catch is a bycatch whose capture is dependent on fishing effort applied to other species, and without understanding how these fisheries have been prosecuted it is difficult to be certain of what is being measured.

22. The submitters note the information on JDO7 is poor. Biomass seems to be okay on the west coast, but there is less fishing pressure in that area. The john dory stock in the Tasman/Golden Bays seem to be lower, have more effort applied and is showing signs of growth overfishing.

23. We submit it goes against all reasonable expectations and environmental principles for the Minister to grant a TACC increase in JDO7 based on west coast biomass estimates; surely management is most needed in Tasman/Golden Bays where stocks are depleted and few adult fish are present (blue bars in Figure 1 greater than 35 cm). A precautionary approach ought to be applied in JDO7.

2 Ministry for Primary Industries (2015) Fisheries Assessment Plenary May 2015: Stock assessments and stock status. JDO7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 3 64 Males Females All

Figure 1: Scaled population lengths from trawl surveys in 2013 (top row) and 2015 (bottom row) for John dory from the West Coast (white bars) and Tasman Bay/Golden Bay (blue bars), n = number of fish measured, no. = scaled population number.

Recreational interests 24. MPI advise ramp surveys indicate an increase in recreational fishing effort since the 2011/12 National Panel Survey. MPI estimate current recreational harvest is likely to exceed the existing allowance of 2 tonnes. MPI notes there is uncertainty in using the 2011/12 result to estimate or predict current catches. An updated estimate of recreational catch is expected from the National Panel Survey in 2019, though the boat ramp and aerial survey currently underway will collect some information on john dory.

25. We submit the Minister cannot knowingly ignore current information on the extent of recreational harvest. The Minister must act in a precautionary manner, apply s21 of the Fisheries Act 1996, and ‘allow for’ recreational harvest in JDO7 to ensure all mortality is retained within the TAC.

~~26. Given the uncertainty and likelihood that recreational catch of john dory has increased, the Minister needs to allow for a modest increase for recreational interests, from two to 3 tonnes.~~

27. The submitters accept that recreational harvest is likely to increase with abundance. The updated recreational harvest estimate in 2019 ought to give a good indication whether catch has changed over time.

Customary interests 28. The submitters note the South Island customary fishing regulations cover some parts of JDO7, but not the Tasman Bay, Golden Bay and Marlborough Sounds areas. We also note that it is not mandatory to report on permits issued or catch taken under regulations 50 and 51 of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013.

~~29. MPI are unsure the actual level of customary catch and note that there have been no customary authorisations issued in JDO7 and reported to MPI in the last five years.~~

30. Given the uncertainty around customary harvest, the increase in abundance of john dory, the need to account for all mortality within the TAC, and the Minister’s statutory obligation to provide for customary interests in JDO7 we submit the allowance set aside for customary non-commercial fishing interests is increased from one to 2 tonnes as of 1 October 2016.

JDO7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 4 65 Other mortality 31. Given the paucity of information it is difficult to make an informed comment on whether the allowance set aside for fishing related mortality is adequate. The allowance of 8 tonnes, being 5% of the TACC, seems low given that john dory are taken as a bycatch in a mixed species trawl fishery.

32. The submitters request from MPI any information regarding the mortality of small john dory in JDO7. There is no commercial minimum legal size limit so all caught john dory must be landed. We know from earlier reports that commercial fishers are reluctant to land fish below a certain length. A recent report estimated the minimum economic size for john dory is 30cm. A large proportion of the trawl survey catch in Tasman and Golden Bays were smaller than this (Figure 1). a. What is the length frequency of john dory commercial landed catch in JDO7? b. What are the differences between length frequencies of landed john dory catch compared to: i. Trawl survey catch; and ii. On-board observed catch?

Deemed values 33. MPI notes that one source of fishing related mortality could be discarding to avoid deemed value (DV) payments. Given recent revelations of discarding of unwanted catch and small fish from inshore trawlers on the east coast of the South Island we assume that some discarding occurs in JDO7 as well.

34. MPI notes that, “deemed values are an economic tool that incentivises commercial fishers not to catch in excess of their individual annual catch entitlements”. In some fisheries that may be true, but for some stocks deemed values are not effective. We have made plenty of comments on the failure of the deemed value regime in earlier submissions, suffice to say that we do not believe deemed values are an effective tool to regulate commercial catch, but they may influence what is landed3.

35. In the case of JDO7, MPI has reviewed the deemed value rates of $2.62 (interim) and $5.25 (annual) and decided no changes are required. Given that the port price is $6.22 per kilo and the annual DV rate is $5.25 we submit there is an incentive for commercial fishers to land john dory in excess of their ACE.

Mixed trawl fishery 36. MPI advise that because john dory is a bycatch species they do not anticipate any significant increase in JDO7 targeting as a result of a TACC increase. While targeting is unlikely we do expect commercial catches to increase in concert with a TACC increase for JDO7.

37. For a start, the TACC in JDO7 has never constrained commercial trawl effort. Since 2003/04 catch has ranged from 170% to 85% of the TACC. It seems market demand is more influential on this fishery than the TACC.

38. Secondly, john dory is caught by bottom trawlers targeting flatfish (25%), barracouta (23%) and tarakihi (18%) in Area 7. Trawling for flatfish has never been limited by the TACC, with catches since 2003/04 ranging from 68% of the TACC to 25%. Trawling for barracouta is similarly unconstrained, with catches ranging from 132% to 55% of the TACC. Tarakihi seems to be the only one of these three target species that is managed around a TACC, with catches ranging from 108% to 90% of the Total Allowable Commercial Catch.

Environmental interests 39. If there is a TACC increase for JDO7 it is inevitable that trawling will increase and there will be environmental impacts from this increased effort. The highly dynamic west coast may be able to withstand increased trawl effort, but there could be serious consequences if more trawl effort was applied in the Tasman/Golden Bays, because those areas are already showing signs of overfishing. Given that our understanding of the marine environment is so poor it is incumbent on the Minister to

3 http://goo.gl/EncfIq JDO7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 5 66 act in a precautionary manner when setting or varying the TAC and TACC, as per s9 of the Fisheries Act 1996.

~~JDO7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 6 67 Phil Appleyard President NZ Sport Fishing Council PO Box 207-012 Hunua 2254 [email protected]~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6011 [email protected]~~

~~9 July 2016~~

~~NZ Sport Fishing Council submission on the review of management controls for the Jack mackerel 3 fishery (JMA3) for 1 October 2016~~

~~Submission: Conditional support for MPI Option 2.~~

Recommendations 1. The Minister decreases the Total Allowable Catch to cover the existing use, as follows: a. Decrease the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) from 18,000 tonnes to 9,000 tonnes on the condition that the process is started to make Chilean jack mackerel a separate quota species; b. Decrease the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) from 18,000 tonnes to 8,780 tonnes; c. Establish the allowance for Maori customary non-commercial interests at 20 tonnes; d. Establish the allowance for recreational interests at 20 tonnes; and e. Establish an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality at 180 tonnes. 2. The Minister acknowledges that: a. There have been significant declines in abundance of Chilean jack mackerel in New Zealand and the South Pacific Ocean in the last 15 years; b. New Zealand jack mackerel are now under pressure in some areas; c. The stipulation made when the TAC was increase in the 1990s was that catches above the original TACs be accounted for by increases in Chilean jack mackerel only; d. Having an invasive species with highly variable catch in the JMA mixed species TAC makes stock assessment and management nearly impossible. e. The best longer term solution is to split Chilean jack mackerel out of the JMA TAC to allow better management the New Zealand species. 3. MPI work with stakeholders in the JMA fisheries to develop an appropriate catch splitting or monitoring scheme to provide reliable estimates of the jack mackerel species proportions.

NZ Sport Fishing Council - LEGASEA 4. The New Zealand Sport Fishing Council and our outreach LegaSea (the submitters) appreciate the opportunity to submit on the review of management controls for Jack mackerel 3. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) released their Discussion Paper on 10 June 2016 with submissions due by 11 July. Any changes will apply from 1 October 2016.

~~JMA3 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 1 68~~

5. The NZ Sport Fishing Council is a national sports organisation with over 32,000 affiliated members from 57 clubs nationwide. The Council has initiated LegaSea to generate widespread awareness and support for the need to restore abundance in our inshore marine environment. Also, to broaden NZSFC involvement in marine management advocacy, research, education and alignment on behalf of our members and LegaSea supporters. www.legasea.co.nz

6. The submitters are committed to ensuring that sustainability measures and environmental management controls are designed and implemented to achieve the Purpose and Principles of the Fisheries Act 1996, including “maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations…” [s8(2)(a) Fisheries Act 1996]

7. The submitters continue to object to the Ministry’s tight, 21 working day consultation timetable. In our view this timeframe does not allow for adequate consultation on the 10 fish stocks reviewed this year, it is particularly offensive for non-commercial organisations such as ours that need to consult with a range of interests and volunteers. This is unacceptable consultation and, in our opinion most likely unlawful as per ss 12 and 13 of the Fisheries Act and as judged by the Court of Appeal1.

Jack mackerel 9. New Zealand has three jack mackerel species that are managed as a species complex. Until the mid- 1980s only two jack mackerel species had been reported in New Zealand waters. The third species (Trachurus murphyi, also called “Chilean” or “redtail” jack mackerel) was first positively identified in 1986 and was found around New Zealand in large schools in the early 1990s. The abundance of the Chilean jack mackerel has declined and research trawl data suggested that yellowtail jack mackerel (Trachurus novaezelandiae) is part of an inshore assemblage that prefers shallow northern waters (centred on about 60 m depth and latitude about 38.7° S). All three species overlap spatially, but the horse mackerel (Trachurus declivis) is part of a deeper assemblage around central New Zealand (centred on about 130 m and about 40.1° S), and T. murphyi occurs deeper still and further south (centred on about 220 m and about 44.7° S)

~~Figure 1: Jack mackerel 3 Quota Management Area~~

~~1 International Airport Ltd and Air New Zealand (CA 23/92, 73/92[1993] 1 NZLR 671).~~

JMA3 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 2 69 Jack mackerel management 10. MPI is reviewing the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) and allowances for Jack mackerel 3 (JMA3). The TACC was increased from 2,700 t to 18,000 t in the early 1990s on the proviso that catches in JMA 1 and JMA 3 above the original TACs (5970 t and 2700 t, respectively) be accounted for by increases in Chilean jack mackerel only. This was seen as a method of managing jack mackerel independently of the other two species. This approach was introduced as a means of maintaining stocks of the endemic species while allowing exploitation of increased stocks of Chilean jack mackerel resulting from its invasion.

11. As a requirement of the increased TACCs introduced in 1994–95, improvements to jack mackerel catch monitoring were made to in order provide adequate data for quantifying the catch by species and their relative abundance in JMA 1 and JMA 3.

12. The wider South Pacific stock of Chilean jack mackerel is managed by the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPFRMO). A stock assessment for Chilean jack mackerel of the South Eastern Pacific Ocean was carried out on behalf of SPRFMO using data up to 2013. The assessment indicated that biomass of Chilean jack mackerel in 2013 was 14% B0, after reaching a low of 5% B0 in 2010.

13. Little is known of the movement or stock structure of Chilean jack mackerel in the Western Pacific or New Zealand. It is not possible to do a stock assessment on the portion of the stock that is in the New Zealand EEZ. Of more concern is that without good information on the catch, by species, that is landed under the JMA code it makes a stock assessment of the New Zealand jack mackerel impossible.

14. The original, agreed-to stipulation that the increased TACC would only be for catch of JMA Chilean jack mackerel has not been adhered to. The best long term solution is to split the JMA TAC between the New Zealand species and the invasive Chilean species.

~~15. The proposed options for the management of JMA3 in 2016/17 follows –~~

Future management 16. Option 2 is a reasonable management response to the reduced abundance of Chilean jack mackerel in New Zealand and the South Pacific Ocean, and would allow headroom for a split of the TAC. This would need to be consulted on and may need the agreement of quota holders. The starting point for discussions would be a TAC of 2,700 t for the New Zealand species, as it was before, and 6,300 for the Chilean jack mackerel.

17. An essential component of having the split TAC will be the ability to either separate catch by species, or having an agreed catch sampling protocol that fishers and observers can use to get an unbiased estimate of the species proportions. For example, blue mackerel is a separate quota species caught in the jack mackerel fishery and this catch has to be recorded separately.

~~JMA3 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 3 70~~

Recreational interests 18. While the amateur harvest of jack mackerel is not large in JMA3 there has been concern expressed by clubs and LegaSea supporters about the crucial role this species plays in the food web. In southern waters where pilchard and anchovy are less common, jack mackerel provide that critical link in the food chain between plankton and larger predators.

19. This issue has also been raised by many of our member clubs in the Bay of Plenty where intensive purse seine effort is focused on schools of the yellowtail jack mackerel (T. novaezelandiae) in winter and spring. This mainly inshore species is getting hammered and the average size has reduced in recent years. There is concern about the decline in this stock affecting feeding and breeding success of seabirds, marine mammals, and fish stocks in the western Bay of Plenty in particular.

20. The 4,030 t increase in the JMA1 TAC specifically for Chilean jack mackerel is now being caught every year. In 2014/15 95% of jack mackerel catch by purse seine vessels was yellowtail jack mackerel and just 2% was Chilean jack mackerel. This is another stock that needs the TAC split to make it clear what species is being managed and caught.

~~Customary interests~~

~~21. Maori customary fishers may also find that jack mackerel is once again available for purposes of manaakitanga, and an increase in the allowance for customary fishers to 20 t is warranted.~~

~~Other mortality~~

22. The allowance of other sources of fishing mortality needs to be set at the best estimate of what it will be. MPI estimates of 180 t may be adequate but this tonnage does not seem to be based on any data or analysis. In high volume, low value fisheries waste can be an issue particularly when the target species is a higher value.

~~JMA3 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 4 71 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Glenis ~~Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2016 7:37 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Snapper~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Limit 3 top South Island raise minimum size to 280mm Regards John & Glenis~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~1 72 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: john meikle ~~Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2016 10:03 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: SNA 7 Consultation 2016.~~~~

~~Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

Being a past commercial operator of a Fish packhouse in Picton during the mid 80’s and 90’s ,a keen recreational fisher in the Marlborough sounds from the late 60’s until present I make comment as follows :

I have witnessed the implementation of the QMS in the mid 80’s and massive cut’s in the TAC for SNA7 which were primarily due to the damage inflicted by pair trawlers in the 70’s and early 80’s. Although I hear of the odd snapper being caught in the queen charlotte this pales in comparision to the biomass that we had in the sounds in the 70’s and early 80’s. Given that over 30 years have elapsed since the inception of the QMS it has shown that the relatively small quota set for snapper has taken a very long time to regenerate. Although anecdotal evidence shows the biomass has recently flourished in some areas does this mean it’s time to relax the rules ?. After witnessing the decimation of the blue cod fishery this is without doubt a prime opportunity for us all to prudently manage a finite and prized resource and perhaps allow other species recover as well. If we are to learn from our past mistakes then with science, policing and careful husbandry we can once again see a fishery flourish. I are in full support of keeping the “status quo”, Increasing catch limit’s will once again create a situation that not only put’s unnecessary pressure on snapper but on other fishstocks in this FMA.

~~Yours Sincerely~~

~~Jonathan Meikle~~

~~1 73 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Lloyd Hanson ~~Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 3:13 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: SNAPPER 7 SUBMISSION~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

Re Snapper 7 I wish to submit:- (i) Iincrease the recreational quota (ii) Marlborough Sounds limit be lifted from 3 to 6, Nelson-Golden Bay area be reduced to 6, thus making a 6 limit consistent across the top of the South Island. (iii) The commercial quota remain the same or only lifted slightly. In the 1990s, the recreational bag limit was slashed. It was unfair because there was no reduction in commercial TAC. Management measures must be shared. The unfair cut is still strong in anglers’ minds. MPI should address that be raising recreational limit to 6, and leaving commercial unchanged? I would like to MPI more active in promoting things like use of circle hooks, barbless hooks and limiting your kill i.e. "Don’t necessarily kill your bag limit, go fishing next day or soon.”

~~Lloyd Hanson s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 74 PauaMAC 7 submission on the Ministry for Primary Industries discussion document: Review of Management Controls for the Paua 7 Fishery (PAU 7) in 2016~~

~~Introduction 1. This submission is made by PauaMAC 7 Industry Association Incorporated on behalf of the commercial paua industry in the PAU 7 (Marlborough/Golden and Tasman Bays) fishery.~~

2. PauaMAC 7 supports the need for a significant reduction of the PAU 7 TAC in order to ensure sustainability. The industry has been implementing voluntary catch reductions of 20% to 28% over the last four fishing years to support a rebuild in paua abundance and enhance catch per unit effort. We have also increased the minimum harvest size, ranging from 127mm to 132mm, in parts of the fishery and have made significant investment in reseeding. Our divers complete a harvesting course and we have implemented comprehensive electronic catch recording through the use of data loggers and the wearing of turtle units. However, in spite of these initiatives, our divers have observed that the fishery has continued to decline. We now agree that in order to “get in front” of the observed decline, more significant action is required in the form of a TAC and TACC reduction, together with the implementation of other management controls.

3. PauaMAC 7 considers that the MPI discussion document provides a comprehensive and accurate description of the circumstances of the PAU 7 fishery. In particular, we appreciate the recognition given to the industry’s voluntary management initiatives and to the multiple causes of stock decline, including environmental factors as well as fishing pressure. This corresponds with our observations of the dynamics of the fishery. However, we find it inconceivable that the Ministry can propose such significant and costly reductions in commercial harvest while ignoring the commensurate need to (a) reduce the recreational allowance and (b) manage recreational fishing effort. The discussion document is not, as its title suggests, a “review of management controls” for the PAU 7 fishery – it is simply a proposal to reduce the TACC with no consideration of additional management measures necessary to support the rebuild of the fishery.

4. PauaMAC 7 recommends that the Minister should: a) Reduce the PAU 7 TACC by 50% to 94 tonnes (i.e., midway between MPI’s options 2 and 3); b) Reduce the recreational allowance by 50% to 7.5 tonnes to support the effective operation of the QMS and to ensure sustainability; c) Urgently reduce the daily bag limit for recreational harvest to 6 paua to constrain recreational harvest to the recreational allowance;

~~75 2~~

~~d) Introduce verifiable recreational catch reporting; and e) Increase compliance effort in the fishery to support the rebuilding of the stock.~~

~~5. In the remainder of this submission we set out the rationale behind these recommendations.~~

Reducing the TACC by 50% 6. MPI proposes reducing the TACC by either 40% (Option 2) or 60% (Option 3), with a preference for Option 3. We note that both options are expected to achieve the rebuild of the PAU 7 fishery, but over different time frames. Both options are consistent with MPI’s Harvest Strategy Standard. The choice between the two options is therefore essentially an economic (utilisation) choice, rather than a sustainability choice. As MPI is reasonably confident that both options will enable the fishery to rebuild, it is therefore appropriate that the choice of the rebuild rate is based on the preferences of users of the fishery. PauaMAC 7 considers that the choice of rebuild rate should be influenced primarily by the preferences of quota owners (rather than non-commercial users) since:

~~ The commercial paua industry is the only sector that will be negatively affected by MPI’s proposals; and~~

 The paua industry has already made significant efforts (at substantial cost to quota owners and commercial harvesters) to support the rebuild of the fishery through voluntary ACE shelving over several years.

7. A 50% TACC cut is recommended by PauaMAC 7 because:  It will facilitate a faster rebuild rate than Option 2 but with slightly less economic impact than Option 3 – although the economic impact on the paua industry of a 50% cut will still be substantial at approximately $2.3 million annually;

 It acknowledges, and therefore encourages, the significant efforts that quota owners have made to sustain the fishery through ACE shelving and other management measures;  It allows space for quota owners to subsequently implement shelving to support the rebuild of the stock, should quota owners determine that ACE shelving is desirable in future years;

 The existence of s28N rights in the PAU 7 fishery means that a reallocation of quota shares occurs when the TACC is increased following a reduction. The larger the reduction, the more distortionary the impact of the subsequent reallocation. A 50% decrease has a slightly less distortionary impact on quota share ownership than the 60% reduction proposed in Option 3;  Imposing a rapid rebuild rate (i.e., Option 3) is particularly unfair when the costs of that rebuild are borne solely by one sector, but the benefits are experienced by all; and  A rapid rebuild rate increases the risk that any resulting extra stock abundance will simply be absorbed by additional recreational harvest rather than contributing to the rebuild of the stock. A slower rebuild rate provides more time for fisheries users and MPI to develop and implement appropriate measures to manage recreational harvest so that all sectors may contribute to the rebuild.

~~76 3~~

Proportional reduction in the recreational allowance 8. Options 2 and 3 both entail a disproportional reduction in the TAC – i.e., the non-commercial allowances are not reduced in proportion to the TAC. As a consequence, not only does the industry bear the full cost of the proposed TAC reduction, the reduction also results in a substantial reallocation of shares of the fishery from commercial to non-commercial users. Currently the TACC is 85% of the PAU 7 fishery; under Option 2 the TACC is 73% of the fishery; and under Option 3 it is just 65% of the fishery. In other words, under Option 3, 20% of the PAU 7 fishery would be reallocated from quota owners to recreational fishers. If the fishery rebuilds as anticipated, it is highly unlikely that the increased stock abundance will be allocated entirely to the commercial sector. Any reallocation of shares in the fishery is therefore likely to be a permanent loss for quota owners and commercial fishers and a permanent preference to recreational fishers.

9. PauaMAC 7 considers this to be unacceptable and contrary to the scheme of the Fisheries Act 1996 and the QMS. We accept that the Minister has discretion when setting or varying a TAC to determine the apportionment of TAC between the commercial and non-commercial sectors under section 21 of the Act. However, this discretion must be exercised in accordance with the purpose of the Act and the QMS generally and must be based on comprehensive and objective advice. We find it extremely concerning that MPI’s proposals do not even include options for proportional and disproportional reductions in the TAC. The failure to include allocation options:

 Suggests the Ministry has predetermined the allocation of the TAC in a manner that is inconsistent with the case law on consultation;  Means that stakeholders have not been provided with adequate information on the consequences of different allocation approaches so as to enable an informed response to the consultation material; and  Unless rectified in the final advice, means that the Minister will not be adequately informed of the significant risks of implementing a disproportional reduction of the PAU 7 TAC (and, because allocation was not addressed in the consultation material, will not be adequately informed of stakeholders’ views on allocation).

10. PauaMAC 7 considers that any reduction in the PAU 7 TAC should be proportional across the commercial and recreational sectors – i.e., if the TACC is reduced by 50%, the recreational allowance should also be reduced by 50%. We recommend a proportional reduction because:

 Sustainability measures should not be used to implement a reallocation of a fishery by stealth. If the Minister considers that it is desirable to reallocate more of the PAU 7 fishery to recreational users, this should be done in an up-front open manner and should be properly justified and explicitly consulted upon;

 While there is a range of ways in which discretion under section 21 may be lawfully exercised, in the absence of any compelling reasons to the contrary, the Minister should always prefer alternatives that promote rather than undermine the scheme of the Act. Preferential reallocation from commercial to non-commercial users is inconsistent with the scheme of the Act because it undermines quota owners’ beliefs that they have secure property rights, diminishing incentives to nurture the fishery and eroding the basis of the QMS. For example, what incentive is there for the

~~77 4~~

paua industry to protect the health of the fishery by implementing ACE shelving if the benefits (in terms of increased stock abundance) are reallocated to the recreational sector at the expense of the commercial sector?;

 Case law and expert advice supports our proposition that, although proportional allocation is not a requirement of the Act, it is more consistent with the purpose and scheme of the Act than preferential reallocation. For example, in the “snapper case”, Justice McGechan observed: “It is clear Maori negotiators in 1992 were aware that ITQ held by the [Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries] Commission, and further ITQ to be received by the Commission and Maori, would be subject to reduction along with the TACC on biological grounds. Likewise, it might be increased. That risk and potential benefit, were known and accepted. I accept Maori did not envisage, or accept, that TACC and quota might be reduced simply to enable a greater recreational allocation of the resource. It is highly unlikely Maori would have agreed to surrender Treaty rights for the better gratification of Auckland boatmen. The thought did not cross the tangata whenua mind.”1  McGechan J’s observations also confirm that preferential reallocation from commercial to recreational fishers is inconsistent with the Crown’s obligations under the Deed of Settlement. Reducing the commercial share of available yield in favour of the recreational sector suggests a priority of recreational interests over the Crown’s obligation to protect the value of the Deed of Settlement – a position that is inconsistent with section 5(b) of the Fisheries Act;

 The Ministry previously had a policy position that favoured proportional allocation between sectors – presumably for the same reasons we identify above. For example: o during debates about kahawai management measures, the Ministry (then MFish) said:2 MFish generally supports a proportional approach to allocation of shared fisheries on the basis that all stakeholders should contribute to increasing the abundance of the resource. This position assumes that all sectors are to a lesser or greater degree responsible for the present state of the fishery. Further, it assumes that the level of catch reduction achieved from each contributing sector is of some consequence to the overall reduction required. o MPI also expressed a preference for proportional allocation in consultation material on the Review of sustainability and other management controls for snapper 1 (SNA 1) in 2013. It is unclear why MPI has not only abandoned a long-held and well-supported policy position, but has done this without debate or apparent consideration of the consequences;

 Reallocating available yield away from a tightly managed, well monitored regime (the QMS) to non-commercial fishers increases the sustainability risk to PAU7 by decreasing the proportion of the fishery that is monitored and tightly managed. In the absence of recreational catch reporting, reallocation to the recreational sector will increase the uncertainty in stock assessments; and

1 New Zealand Fishing Industry (Inc) v Minister of Fisheries (CA 82/97, 22 July 1997), McGechan J. See also the affidavit of economist John Yeabsley in this case. 2 Review of Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for Kahawai for the 2005-06 (1 October) Fishing Year. Initial Position Paper. Ministry of Fisheries, 8 July 2005. Paragraph 66.

~~78 5~~

 Reallocation of the shares in the PAU 7 fishery will open the Crown up to claims of compensation under section 308 of the Act. While section 308 protects the Crown from compensation claims for a reduced TACC as a result of a reduction of the TAC for sustainability reasons it does not prohibit compensation for a reduction in the TACC as a result of a reallocation to the non-commercial sector under sections 20 and 21. The Minister should be informed that if a substantive reallocation were to occur (and we consider that a 20% reallocation is substantive), compensation to PAU 7 quota owners is arguable as a common law right.

Reducing the recreational daily bag limit to 6 paua 11. PauaMAC 7 is appalled that the Ministry has not recommended concurrent measures to constrain recreational fishing within the allowance with a higher level of certainty. We consider that a reduction in the daily bag limit is required irrespective of whether the recreational allowance is retained at current levels (as proposed by MPI) or reduced by 50% (as recommended by PauaMAC 7).

12. Even if the current recreational allowance is retained, MPI cannot be certain that recreational harvest is within the levels of the allowance. In fact, the best available information strongly suggests that recreational harvest is already exceeding the allowance.3 MPI’s acknowledgement that the best available information on recreational harvest is highly uncertain reinforces the notion that a precautionary approach should be adopted in relation to controlling recreational removals.

13. Even though information on current recreational harvest is uncertain, one thing is known for sure – i.e., the risk that recreational harvest will exceed the allowance will increase as the abundance of the fishery increases. PauaMAC 7 does not wish to see the success of our ACE shelving initiatives and the TACC cut jeopardised by unconstrained recreational catch eroding the anticipated increases in stock abundance. We are already experiencing this situation on the East Coast of PAU7 where a voluntary increase in minimum harvest size for commercial harvest has resulted in increased recreational pressure on the smaller fish left in the water. We consider it is essential that MPI urgently initiates consultation on a meaningful reduction in the recreational daily bag limit that can be implemented within the 2016 calendar year.

14. The Ministry’s failure to include in the discussion document any proposals to manage recreational fishing makes a mockery of any concept of “sharing in the rebuild of the fishery” and reduces the incentives created by ITQ for responsible stewardship of fisheries resources, as discussed above. It is also inconsistent with the requirements of case law. For example:

 In the snapper case, McGechan J found the Minister must be cognisant of the need to “restrain recreational fishing in a way which seeks to prevent the commercial sacrifice being caught on recreational hooks”;4 and

3 See MPI discussion paper page 15: “MPI considers the uncertainty and likely underestimate of recreational harvest levels in the PAU 7 fishery are important to note. There is potential that recreational harvest is exceeding the current allowance, however, there is insufficient information to determine the degree of any additional harvest.” 4 New Zealand Fishing Industry Association (Inc) & Ors v Minister of Fisheries (CA82, 83/97, 22 July 1997) page 18.

~~79 6~~

 In the kahawai case, the Supreme Court was unambiguous in its expectation that the Minister must control recreational catch within the allowance, for example by imposing bag limits and size limits.

15. PauaMAC 7 recommends a daily bag limit of 6 paua as this should constrain recreational harvest levels within the current allowance and is likely to go some way towards constraining recreational harvest within a reduced allowance, as we recommend in this submission. It also aligns with the daily bag limit developed by Te Korowai that applies in the Kaikoura region. We consider that there would be compliance benefits in having a consistent recreational bag limit of 6 paua from Kaikoura northwards.

16. We also strongly encourage MPI to develop more accurate ways of monitoring recreational harvest (including consideration of verifiable recreational catch reporting) so that recreational management measures may be designed and implemented with more certainty and effectiveness.

Increasing compliance effort 17. PauaMAC 7 is disappointed that 10 tonnes of any new TAC will be set aside for illegal harvest (i.e., an increase from the current allowance of 3 tonnes of other sources of fishing related mortality). This allowance represents 10 tonnes of paua which could otherwise contribute to the rebuild of the fishery or be harvested by legitimate users. We recommend that MPI should commit additional compliance effort to PAU 7 in order to (a) more accurately determine the actual level of illegal harvest and (b) reduce the level of offending so as to benefit the rebuild of the fishery.

~~Barry Chandler Chairman PauaMac7 Industry Association Inc. s 9(2)(a)~~

~~80 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Snapper 7 Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 9:59 a.m. To: Sonja Hempel Subject: FW: Snapper review SNA 7~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~From: Maurice Carter [mailto:s 9(2)(a) ] Sent: Sunday, 26 June 2016 1:59 p.m. To: Snapper 7 Subject: Snapper review SNA 7~~

~~Good Afternoon~~

~~To have a fish stock on the increase is really good news but do we know why. It may well be just an increase in water temperature which has caused the fish to move south.~~

~~More research needs to be done before any increase in take is considered~~

~~Whilst your graph is showing and increase in biomass it seems to be starting to level out towards your default line and may well not pass it.~~

~~I am at a loss to understand why the TAC is 200 tonne yet the yearly average take for the past 5 years is 210 tinne.~~

~~The recreational take at 10 (3 in Sounds) fish is enough for a "bloke to catch and take home a feed".~~

~~I suggest that a wait and see approach be adopted.~~

~~Regards~~

~~Maurice Carter s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 s 9(2)(a) s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Ngāti Kuia Te Iwi Pakohe~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~INSHORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES P.O.BOX 2526 WELLINGTON 6011.~~

~~SUBMISSION:~~

~~TE RUNANAGA O NGĀTI KUIA TRUST AND TE HOIERE ASSET HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED~~

~~THE REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT CONTROLS FOR THE PAUA 7 FISHERY (PAU 7) IN 2016.~~

TE RŪNANGA O NGĀTI KUIA TRUST (TRONKT): TRONKT is the Mandated Iwi Organisation (MIO) and the Iwi Aquaculture Organisation (IAO) for Ngāti Kuia. TRONK is the Post Settlement Governance Entity and Treaty Settlement partner with the Crown and is the Settlement Entity for all previous assets held by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Charitable Trust.

~~TE HOIERE ASSET HOLDING COMPANY: (THAHC): THAHC is the Commercial Asset Holding Company for Settlement and Commercial Assets for TRONKT.~~

INTRODUCTION NGĀTI KUIA POSITION ON THE MANAGEMENT CONTROLS FOR PAU7: As a stakeholder in all three groups, Customary, Commercial and Recreational, the overall important consideration as Kaitiaki, must be the sustainability of the fishery and to put fair and just supporting measures in place to ensure that there is a fishery for future generations.

CUSTOMARY: Ngāti Kuia as a Treaty Partner with a Fisheries Protocol Area in our Deed of Settlement, the Pau 7 area is in our Rohe. Ngāti Kuia have always exercised our customary rights for tangi, Iwi Hui and approved occasions to take paua which is acknowledged as a taonga species for iwi. In terms of the customary allowance we support no changes, Iwi have in place the necessary systems and processes to manage their catches following principals of Kaitiakitanga, the allowance which is acknowledged by MPI is not a constraint on customary catch. Any future management processes also need to take into account the importance of Tory Channel (Kura Te Au) Port Underwood, Pelorus Sounds & Durville Island, as these are important food baskets areas for Iwi of Te Tauihu.

~~90 COMMERCIAL: THAHC hold settlement & normal PAU 7 quota and considers that the MPI discussion document provides a comprehensive and accurate description of the circumstances of the PAU 7 fishery.~~

In particular, we appreciate the recognition given to the industry’s voluntary management initiatives and to the multiple causes of stock decline, including environmental factors as well as fishing pressure.

We find it inconceivable that the Ministry can propose such significant and costly reductions in commercial harvest while ignoring the commensurate need to (a) reduce the recreational allowance and (b) manage recreational fishing effort.

The discussion document is not, as its title suggests, a “review of management controls” for the PAU 7 fishery – it is simply a proposal to reduce the TACC with no consideration of additional management measures necessary to support the rebuild of the fishery.

THAHC are part of the PAUMAC 7 group and supports the PAUMAC7 recommendations that the Minister should: • Reduce the PAU 7 TACC by 50% to 93.62 tonne (i.e., midway between MPI’s options 2 and 3), our first preference would be for shelving, to protect our Settlement Asset. • Increase compliance effort in the fishery to support the rebuilding of the stock. The commercial paua industry is the only sector that will be negatively affected by MPI’s proposals; and

A 50% TACC cut is supported by Ngāti Kuia because: • It will facilitate a faster rebuild rate than Option 2 but with slightly less economic impact than Option 3 – although the economic impact on the paua industry of a 50% cut will still be substantial at approximately $2.3 million annually; • It acknowledges, and therefore encourages, the significant efforts that quota owners have made to sustain the fishery through ACE shelving and other management measures; • It allows space for quota owners to subsequently implement shelving to support the rebuild of the stock, should quota owners determine that ACE shelving is desirable in future years; • Imposing a rapid rebuild rate (i.e., Option 3) is particularly unfair when the costs of that rebuild are borne solely by one sector, but the benefits are experienced by all; and • A rapid rebuild rate increases the risk that any resulting extra stock abundance will simply be absorbed by additional recreational harvest rather than contributing to the rebuild of the stock. • A slower rebuild rate provides more time for fisheries users and MPI to develop and implement appropriate measures to manage recreational harvest so that all sectors may contribute to the rebuild. Case law and expert advice supports our proposition that, although proportional allocation is not a requirement of the Act, it is more consistent with the purpose and scheme of the Act than preferential reallocation. • For example, in the “snapper case”, Justice McGechan observed: “It is clear Maori negotiators in 1992 were aware that ITQ held by the [Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries] Commission, and further ITQ to be received by the Commission and Maori, would be subject to reduction along with the TACC on biological grounds. Likewise, it might be increased. That risk and potential benefit, were known and accepted. I accept Maori did not envisage, or accept, that TACC and quota might be reduced simply to enable a greater recreational allocation of the resource. It is highly unlikely Maori would have agreed to surrender Treaty rights for the better

91 gratification of Auckland boatmen. The thought did not cross the tangata whenua mind.”1 • The existence of s28N rights in the PAU 7 fishery means that a reallocation of quota shares occurs when the TACC is increased following a reduction. The larger the reduction, the more distortionary the impact of the subsequent reallocation. A 50% decrease has a slightly less distortionary impact on quota share ownership than the 60% reduction proposed in Option 3

• Iwi Settlement Quota will be at risk with the legislative s28N rights and seek legislative changes to ensure Settlement quota lost through a TACC cut be proportionately reinstated, as the Crown as our Treaty Partner is required to protect Iwi enduring settlements.

RECREATIONAL: Ngāti Kuia are also part of the recreational sector, and have seen an increase in the overall fishing effort of the recreational sector. The Government’s proposal to put a Recreational Fishing Park in the Marlborough Sounds, will also contribute to increase the recreational fishing effort.

~~We support a daily bag limit of 6 paua as this should constrain recreational harvest levels within the current allowance.~~

This aligns with the daily bag limit developed by Te Korowai that applies in the Kaikoura region. We consider that there would be compliance benefits in having a consistent recreational bag limit of 6 paua from Kaikoura northwards.

Reduce the recreational allowance by 50% to 7.5 tonne to support the effective operation of the QMS and to ensure sustainability; Calibri (Body) It is important for MPI to assist recreational fishers to gain a greater awareness of the efforts for a rebuild of the industry, and recreational data information will be key to contributing to the future rebuild of a sustainable fishery. CHARTER BOAT OPERATORS: NGĀTI KUIA SUPPORT TE OHU KAIMOANA SUBMISSION THAT:

Consideration should also be given to regulating charter boat access to the paua fishery. With the latest announcement by the Prime Minister that we can expect an increase of 3 million more Chinese tourists over the next 3 years, we need to be careful this does not result in significantly higher recreational catches.

Our concern is driven by what is happening in the rock lobster fishery around Kaikoura. There has been a massive increase in the amount of rock lobster being caught by charter boat operators servicing Chinese tourists.

There is nothing stopping this from occurring in the paua fishery where paua fetch as much as $100 each in international airports in New Zealand. Paua or abalone is a delicacy in China. Recreational fishers, which can include Chinese tourists, can currently take home up to 10 paua each provided they catch the paua. If this trend in the rock lobster fishery carries over to the paua fishery it will cause major problems for other extractive users of the fishery and MPI. There is no requirement for charter boat operators to report paua catches therefore we would like MPI to make it mandatory.

~~Transitional arrivals to New Zealand have the same right as New Zealand residents to take recreational catch limits and also take an accumulative bag limit out of New Zealand.~~

~~92 Transitional Arrivals should be required to purchase a fishing license to allow them to harvest shellfish and fish from QMA.~~

~~Boarder control measures should be put in place to ensure any paua taken out of New Zealand should be accompanied by either a License Fish Receiver Docket.~~

~~SUPPORTING MEASURES FOR MANAGEMENT CONTROL FOR PAU 7 FISHERY. Ngāti Kuia support the following measures to contribute towards a rebuild and sustainable fishery.~~

Combined Management by all Stakeholder groups, Customary, Commercial, Recreational and MPI (Crown Agency) is put in place to work toward developing a multisector work group to actively put measures in place that will rebuild the fishery for the benefit of all stakeholders.

~~RECOMMENDATIONS~~

Ngāti Kuia supports the following recommendations; • Reduce the commercial catch by 50% – from 187.24 tonnes down to 93.62 tonnes. The preference is to shelve the reduction but failing this cut the TACC. • Reduce the recreational allowance by 50% – from 15 tonnes to 7.5 tonnes • Reduce the daily recreational bag limit from 10 to 6 paua per day per person • Put in place an accumulation limit on recreational paua • Increase other sources of mortality from 3 tonne to 10 tonne • Retain the customary allowance at 15 tonnes. • Lower the TAC to 123.62 tonnes • Charter boat operators in PAU7 to report paua catches • MPI works with industry to develop tools for collective action. • Legislative change to 28N rights to protect Iwi quota surrender through proposed cuts • Recreational Fisheries adopt a voluntary reporting data system, through an APP process, which could be developed by MPI and then utilised as recreational reporting data when annual TAC are reviewed. • Recreational boat fishing levy/license to contribute towards the management and compliance of the fishery. • Transitional arrivals required to purchase a fishing license (like Trout fish license) to take seafood. • Regulations put in place to monitor the control of paua taken out of New Zealand by Transit arrivals to be accompanied by a Fish Receivers License Docket.

~~Sharyn Smith On behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust and Te Hoiere Asset Holding Company Limited.~~

~~93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Phil Appleyard President NZ Sport Fishing Council PO Box 207-012 Hunua 2254 [email protected]~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6011 [email protected]~~

~~9 July 2016~~

~~NZ Sport Fishing Council submission on the review of management controls for the Paua 7 fishery (PAU7) for 1 October 2016~~

Recommendations 1. The Minister seeks to rebuild Paua 7 by adopting MPI’s proposed Option 3, as follows: a. Reducing the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) from 220.24 tonnes to 115 tonnes; b. Reducing the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) from 187.24 tonnes to 75 tonnes; c. Retaining the allowance for Maori customary non-commercial interests, at 15 tonnes; d. Retaining the allowance for recreational interests, at 15 tonnes; and e. Increasing the allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality, from 3 tonnes to 10 tonnes. 2. The Minister acknowledges that: a. PAU7 has been below target stock size for nearly 20 years; b. Voluntary commercial measures such as shelving have not enabled a rebuild in that time; c. There is no statutory support for shelving; and d. More effective measures are required to rebuild PAU7 to comply with statutory requirements. 3. The Minister acknowledges that low abundance levels for nearly 20 years has impacted on recreational harvest, and that the current allowance is highly uncertain and may not be sufficient to allow for recreational interests when the fishery rebuilds. 4. MPI work with all stakeholders in the PAU7 fishery to develop both rebuild strategies in the short- term and a longer-term plan to guide future management and provide for the foreseeable needs of future generations. The management plan: a. Incorporates the views of local communities and tangata whenua; b. May include local area spatial controls; and c. Enables the Minister to act in a precautionary manner until more information is available on stock levels, fishing impacts, biodiversity and ecosystem function.

NZ Sport Fishing Council - LEGASEA 5. The New Zealand Sport Fishing Council and our outreach LegaSea (the submitters) appreciate the opportunity to submit on the review of management controls for Paua 7. The Ministry for Primary

PAU7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 1 108 Industries (MPI) advised of their Discussion Paper on 10 June 2016 with submissions due by 11 July. Any changes will apply from 1 October 2016.

6. The NZ Sport Fishing Council is a national sports organisation with over 32,000 affiliated members from 57 clubs nationwide. The Council has initiated LegaSea to generate widespread awareness and support for the need to restore abundance in our inshore marine environment. Also, to broaden NZSFC involvement in marine management advocacy, research, education and alignment on behalf of our members and LegaSea supporters. www.legasea.co.nz

7. We are committed to ensuring that sustainability measures and environmental management controls are designed and implemented to achieve the Purpose and Principles of the Fisheries Act 1996, including “maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations…” [s8(2)(a) Fisheries Act 1996]

8. The submitters continue to object to the Ministry’s tight consultation timetable, in this instance, 21 working days. In our view this timeframe does not allow for adequate consultation, it is particularly offensive for non-commercial organisations such as ours that need to consult with a range of interests and volunteers. This is unacceptable consultation and, in our opinion most likely unlawful as per ss 12 and 13 of the Fisheries Act and as judged by the Court of Appeal1.

9. NZSFC representatives are available to discuss this submission in more detail if required. We look forward to positive outcomes from this review and would like to be kept informed of future developments. Our contact is Dave Lockwood, [email protected].

Paua 10. Paua form large aggregations on reefs in shallow sub-tidal coastal habitats. They do not move much, so are considered sedentary. Paua are broadcast spawners, spawning annually. Growth, shape, and recruitment can vary over short distances and maybe influenced by wave exposure, habitat structure, availability of food and population density. Localised fishing pressure make paua vulnerable to recruitment failure, impacting overall productivity. Changes in environmental conditions, loss of drift algae, increased water temperatures, sedimentation and run-off can all have an effect on the health and viability of paua populations.

~~Paua 7 management 11. MPI is reviewing the TAC, TACC and allowances for Paua 7 (PAU7).~~

~~12. The proposed options for the future management of PAU7 follows –~~

13. PAU7 was introduced into the Quota Management System (QMS) in 1986 and the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) was set at 250 tonnes (t). On appeal the TACC increased to 267.48 t by 1989. The TACC was reduced in October 2001 to 240.73 t, and reduced again in 2002 to the current

1 International Airport Ltd and Air New Zealand (CA 23/92, 73/92[1993] 1 NZLR 671). PAU7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 2 109 level of 187.24 t. A Total Allowable Catch (TAC) was set and allowances made in 2001.

~~14. MPI highlights that the PAU7 fishery will continue to decline if the current TAC and TACC is retained.~~

~~15. MPI and the PAU7 industry have been concerned about the declines in biomass and the relatively low level of Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE).~~

16. Commercial fishers free-dive for paua. A Minimum Legal Size (MLS) of 125mm applies to commercial harvest. In some areas the MLS has voluntarily been increased, variously to 126mm, 130mm or 132mm shell length.

~~17. There are a variety of customary area closures and controls applying to customary harvest of paua.~~

~~18. Recreational fishers can take paua by free-diving, or hand gathering from the shore. A MLS of 125mm applies within a daily bag limit of 10 paua per person.~~

Future management 19. The submitters agree with MPI that there is a need to reduce the level of catch in PAU7 because the stock is now below the soft limit, as described in the Ministry’s Harvest Strategy Standard (HSS).

20. The PAU7 stock is estimated to be at 18% of unfished biomass, B18. Given that the fishery has been below target for nearly 20 years, we support as a minimum MPI’s Option 3 – a 60% reduction in the TACC, which is estimated to increase biomass to B25 by 2018.

21. However, we are not sure about the utility of the stock projections, when a 40% reduction in the TACC (Option 2) is projected to rebuild PAU7 to B23 in 2018, and a 60% TACC reduction (Option 3) rebuilds to B25 by 2018. It would be a miracle to achieve this level of precision.

~~22. The submitters note that shelving has been used in five past seasons to try and rebuild stocks and catch rates. While CPUE increased for several years, no long-term benefits have been apparent.~~

~~23. MPI note that, “the rebuild will likely require a number of years before a significant increase in abundance is observed”.~~

~~24. MPI continue, “The shelving of additional quota by fishers may serve as a useful conjunct to the TACC reduction to improve the probability or speed of a rebuild”.~~

Shelving 25. The submitters do not consider shelving to be a lawful or legitimate tool to rebuild New Zealand’s depleted fisheries. Shelving, where commercial interests agree to not catch their Annual Catch Entitlement2 (ACE), is not an acceptable strategy particularly in a depleted stock where non- commercial harvest is being affected by low abundance.

26. As noted by the Supreme Court, the Minister is obliged to ensure sustainability. While users of the fishery can contribute to conservation or the rebuild effort, the Minister is ultimately responsible to set the TAC to move the biomass to or above Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)3.

27. The Minister decides the TAC and TACC based on the best available information, and if that means reducing these levels then so be it. The Courts have confirmed the Minister’s ability to set the TACC at zero. If this occurs no ACE is generated.

2 Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) has a one-year lifespan. 3 NEW ZEALAND RECREATIONAL FISHING COUNCIL INC AND ANOR V SANFORD LIMITED AND ORS SC 40/2008 [28 May 2009]. Para 43. PAU7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 3 110 28. We note MPI’s advice that the paua industry has indicated they are not in favour of continuing shelving arrangements in PAU7, and are seeking “stronger action to support a rebuild of the fishery”. We couldn’t agree more.

29. Fisheries are a national resource; we consider that shelving is merely a convenient way for quota shareholders to retain the TACC when a reduction is the most appropriate response in a fishery depleted by decades of commercial exploitation.

~~Recreational interests 30. MPI note in some areas of PAU7 are under intense recreational fishing pressure, particularly the most accessible areas.~~

31. The most recent National Panel Survey (NPS) estimate of 14.13 tonnes is likely to under estimate actual recreational harvest from PAU7. Shore based fishing was not well captured in the last NPS. An updated estimate of recreational catch is expected in 2019. When combined with s111 harvest, overall catch is estimated to be 15 tonnes.

32. We note that paua harvested by commercial fishers under s111 of the Fisheries Act 1996 has steadily increased over time, from 179kg in 2010-11 to 621kg in 2014-15. This is substantial increase and it must be considered as the Minister reviews this stock and sets aside an allowance for recreational interests.

33. Recreational interests are open to discussions on managing PAU7 to ensure its long-term viability. The fishery must be rebuilt to abundant levels and another harvest estimate will inform future Ministerial decisions.

Customary interests 34. The submitters note there is no reporting requirement applying to Maori customary catch for much of PAU7. MPI advise the Te Tau Ihu Forum, representing eight of nine iwi interests with customary, recreational and commercial interests, reports that “a precautionary approach is used when issuing authorisations because of their perception that the fishery is under pressure”. We support this precautionary approach.

~~35. MPI are unsure the actual level of customary catch but assume the current allowance of 15 tonnes adequately provides for Maori customary interests.~~

36. The submitters note Te Tau Ihu Forum is strongly opposed to any reduction to the customary allowance. The Forum considers that any reduction to the TACC ought to apply proportionally to the recreational allowance. Under Option 3 (60% TACC cut) that would mean the recreational allowance would be reduced by 60%, from 15 t to 6 tonnes. In our view it would be reckless for the Minister to apply such a reduction because current harvest estimates are uncertain, and the Minister has a statutory obligation to manage all mortality within the TAC, and a duty to provide for non- commercial fishing interests in the stock, both Maori customary and recreational interests, as per s21(1)(a) of the Fisheries Act 1996.

Environmental interests 37. The submitters agree with MPI’s assumption that increasing stock abundance in a short time period will improve stock resilience to other anthropogenic (human induced) or environmental factors affecting PAU7.

38. Given that our understanding of the marine environment is so poor it is incumbent on the Minister to act in a precautionary manner when setting or varying the TAC and TACC, as per s9 of the Fisheries Act 1996.

Other mortality 39. Taking this precautionary approach also means that the Minister must set aside an increased amount to allow for other sources of fishing related mortality. Option 3 provides for an increase from 3 tonnes to 10 tonnes. PAU7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 4 111 PAUA INDUSTRY COUNCIL Ltd. C/o Seafood NZ Ltd Level 7, Eagle Technology House 135 Victoria Street, Te Aro, 6011 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

~~Tel (04) 3854005 Fax (04) 3852727 web www.paua.org.nz~~

~~10th July 2016 Paua Industry Council submission on the Ministry for Primary Industries discussion document: Review of Management Controls for the Paua 7 Fishery (PAU 7) in 2016~~

Introduction 1. The Paua Industry Council (PIC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ discussion document Review of Management Controls for the Paua 7 Fishery (PAU 7) in 2016.

2. PIC supports the need for a significant reduction of the PAU 7 TAC in order to ensure sustainability. We strongly endorse the submission of PauaMAC 7 Industry Association Inc, including PauaMAC 7’s recommendations that the Minister should: a) Reduce the PAU 7 TACC by 50% to 94 tonnes (i.e., midway between MPI’s options 2 and 3); b) Reduce the recreational allowance by 50% to 7.5 tonnes to support the effective operation of the QMS and ensure sustainability; c) Urgently reduce the daily bag limit for recreational harvest to 6 paua to constrain recreational harvest to the recreational allowance; and d) Increase compliance effort in the fishery to support the rebuilding of the stock.

~~3. In this submission we comment on two matters of generic significance to the paua industry arising from the Ministry’s PAU7 proposals, i.e.:  The importance of proportional allocation; and~~

~~ The urgent need for statutory tools to enable industry collective management.~~

1) The importance of proportional allocation 4. PIC supports a proportional approach to allocation of the TAC between the recreational and commercial sectors – in other words, if the TAC is reduced, then the TACC and recreational allowances should both be reduced in a proportional manner. We understand that the Fisheries Act provides the Minister with wide discretion when allocating the TAC for a stock. However, we consider that the Act contains a strong implicit preference for proportional allocation because compared to non-proportional approaches, proportional allocation is:

~~112 2~~

 More consistent with the economic objectives of the QMS The QMS relies upon the incentives provided to quota owners by secure property rights. Allocation decisions which give preference to recreational fishers at the expense of the commercial sector, as MPI proposes for PAU 7, create uncertainty about the availability of future commercial harvest levels. This reduces incentives for investment in the fishery and makes co- operation among quota owners more challenging because management efforts made today may not reap any rewards tomorrow. Economists have found that non-proportional allocation imposes an additional attenuation upon ITQ, which can be expected to reduce the efficiency gains which could otherwise be achieved under the QMS – simply put, the tragedy of the commons is not avoided if one sector’s harvest is left essentially unconstrained; and

 More consistent with the requirement to ensure sustainability The QMS will provide strong incentives for sustainability only if variations in the TACC are proportionate to the available yield (i.e., the TAC). Quota owners have little incentive to invest in management measures such as ACE shelving if they cannot be certain that a fair share of those benefits will be allocated to them when the fishery improves. Apart from these effects on incentives, the preferential allocation approach proposed by MPI for PAU 7 directly increases the risks to sustainable management of fisheries by reallocating available yield away from a tightly managed, well monitored regime (the QMS) to recreational fishing which is essentially unmonitored and unconstrained in terms of total allowance.

~~5. For these reasons PIC considers that in the absence of any compelling counter-argument in favour of preferential allocation, proportional allocation should be the norm.~~

6. In the PAU 7 consultation material MPI does not make a compelling case to deviate from proportional allocation. In fact, no options for allocation are presented and allocation is not even discussed. PIC considers that this is a breach of requirements for proper and effective consultation under the Fisheries Act.

~~7. Finally, we note that proportional allocation “on paper” is meaningless in the absence of active measures to:  Accurately record the removals taken by every sector; and~~

 Ensure that the recreational harvest is managed within allowances. We consider that the best available information requires MPI to take immediate action to reduce the recreational bag limit for paua as recommended by PauaMAC 7, even if the allowance remains unchanged.

2) The urgent need for tools for collective management 8. PIC has for many years promoted amending the Fisheries Act to enable the collective management of commercial harvesting activity by quota owners (now referred to as ‘authorised management’, as set out in the seafood industry submission on MPI’s review of the fisheries management system). Had these enabling provisions been in place, we believe that the decline of the PAU 7 fishery could have been arrested before it became a sustainability issue of concern to MPI.

~~113 3~~

9. As noted in the consultation material, PAU 7 quota owners implemented an ambitious programme of ACE shelving over several years to support the rebuild of the fishery. In order to be effective, shelving requires a high level of support across all quota owners in a stock. Quota owners will not shelve their ACE unless they are confident that the other quota owners are also foregoing the same share of their catch.

10. PAU 7 quota owners first shelved 15 percent of the available ACE in 2003. CPUE began to increase and the shelving was therefore not maintained in subsequent years. This reflects the typical pattern of industry management measures in the absence of statutory support – i.e., as soon as some ‘on the water’ improvement is seen, it becomes challenging to maintain the necessary levels of compliance and the management initiatives are rapidly abandoned.

11. When PAU 7 CPUE again began to decline in 2011, further attempts at ACE shelving were initiated and the debate shifted to the level of shelving required. The PauaMAC 7 Executive considered that a substantial shelving was required in order to kick-start a more rapid rebuild for the fishery and proposed a 30 percent shelving. While this proposal was supported by the majority of PAU 7 quota owners a significant minority, who together owned around 20 percent of PAU 7 quota shares, made it clear that they were not prepared to shelve 30 percent of their ACE. In the end, 20 percent of the available ACE was shelved in 2012/13 and the following year.

12. The PauaMAC 7 Executive then proposed additional management measures for the 2014/15 year and beyond, including slowing the extraction rate for the first four months of the season, increasing the minimum harvest size in a sub-area, and a seasonal fishery closure for the month of September. Although the Executive took considerable steps to promote the package of supporting measures, it did not attract sufficient support from quota owners and the measures were unable to be implemented. The Executive then proposed that 30 percent of ACE should be shelved in the 2014/15 year as part of a 5-year rebuild plan for the fishery. The 30 percent shelve was again supported by majority of quota owners, but the same significant minority (now owning around 17 percent of quota shares) agreed to shelve only 20 percent of their ACE.

13. While voluntary ACE shelving has undoubtedly helped to prevent the rebuild rate from declining even further, the longstanding difference of view among quota owners in the PAU 7 fishery has prevented the industry from achieving the desired rebuild rate in a timely manner. In addition, the cost of shelving has been spread inequitably across quota owners and the transactions costs of negotiating and maintaining the voluntary measures have been significant. Because the PAU 7 quota owners lacked appropriate tools to address the problem when it was first observed, the management challenges facing the PAU 7 fishery have now shifted from utilisation issues (e.g., decisions about the appropriate rebuild rate) to a sustainability issue which requires a management response from MPI.

~~14. PIC strongly recommends that the Ministry should progress the seafood industry’s ‘authorised management’ proposals as part of the current review of the fisheries management system.~~

~~Yours sincerely~~

~~Storm Stanley - Chairman s 9(2)(a)~~

~~114 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Reid Forrest ~~Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2016 8:58 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: PAU7 review submission~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~6/28/2016    Reid Forrest s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Ministry for Primary Industries Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6140.~~

~~Review of Management Controls for the Paua 7 Fishery (PAU 7) in 2016~~

~~To Whom it may concern,~~

The paua fishery in area 7 is currently in a very sad state from what it was 10 years ago. I have freedived around the top of the south island and the kaikoura coast for the last twenty years and over this time I have seen ever increasing pressure from both commercial and recreational harvesters. There have also been an ever greater number of areas in the sounds that have become kina barrens thanks to overfishing of predatory fish species such as blue cod and snapper. As they kina numbers have dramatically increased the competition with paua for the remaining algae has only increased, and made growth slower. Also hindering paua growth in the top of the south is the increasing loadsa of fine sediments ending up in the marine environment that both slog fragile gill structures (particularly in juveniles), and also smother and kill small algae growing on the rocky coasts.

I would endorse option 3 to cut the TACC as low as possible, and then continue to monitor stocks over the next 5 years before making any moved to raise TACs again. I feel that option 3 however does not accurately take into account the huge increase in recreational take that I feel is occurring in area 7, as it also is in many other areas of New Zealand. The greater availability and lower costs of small vessels and good quality freediving/snorkeling equipment has seen a huge increase in the number of recreational harvesters collecting paua within area 7. I feel that significantly more data needs to be attained to accurately reflect the current recreational take and the allowable catch for recreational sector should be dramatically increased to cover what is currently being taken. Given the sad state of the PAU7 fishery I would then recommend that recreational bag limits are cut to a maximum of 6 paua per person, per day, or even lower.

~~Regards~~

~~1 115 Reid Forrest Marine Science Consultant~~

~~Reid Forrest Associate SLR Consulting NZ Limited~~

~~Email: s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer~~

This communication and any attachment(s) contains information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Please note that you are not permitted to print, copy, disclose or use part or all of the content in any way.

Emails and any information transmitted thereunder may be intercepted, corrupted or delayed. As a result, SLR does not accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions howsoever caused and SLR accepts no responsibility for changes made to this email or any attachment after transmission from SLR. Whilst all reasonable endeavours are taken by SLR to screen all emails for known viruses, SLR cannot guarantee that any transmission will be virus free.

~~Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated.~~

~~2 116 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Gillian Littlefield ~~Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 12:05 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: marlborough Sounds Snapper submission~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

Twenty years ago the Marlborough Sounds bag limit was slashed from 10 to 3 with no commercial reduction. This injustice should be corrected with a realistic bag limit of 6 fish. The bag limit for Tasman/ Golden bay region should be reduced to a 6 fish limit to make it even across the ‘top of the south’

~~There should be no commercial increase for snapper in TAC 7. Recent increase may be an aberration, let the stock increase if it will and stop chasing the last dollar.~~

There should be no commercial fishing in the Marlborough Sounds as netting decimates the already depleted sounds stock leaving very little for recreational fishers. On a dollar basis, the sounds snapper must be worth far more through money spent by the recreational sector including tourist than will be earned by the return from commercial netting.

~~I do not support recreational long line fishing for snapper as 25 hooks can potentially catch far more than the bag limit and is potentially wasteful.~~

Suggestions of a recreational bag limit increase from 90 tons to 250 tons is very questionable. This would necessitate a huge bag limit increase which I for one would not want to see and consider it a con job to justify a commercial catch increase.

~~Rod Littlefield s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 117 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: R & G Prestage ~~Sent: Monday, 20 June 2016 5:20 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: SNA7 Submission~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

In the SNA7 I support Option 1 as this will leave more fish in the water for recreational fishers. The value of the extra fish in recreational business far exceeds the value generated by commercial fishers. Ron Prestage s 9(2)(a)

~~1 118 08 July 2016~~

~~Deepwater and Inshore Fisheries Managers Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington~~

~~Submitted late by email:~~

~~Review of Fisheries Management Controls from 1 October 2016~~

Thank you for opportunity to comment on the Fisheries Management Review. Sanford provides these comments as a quota owner, ACE purchaser and Licensed Fish Receiver. Throughout the year Sanford staff have actively participated in MPI working groups and industry stakeholder discussions, through these processes our goal is to see our commercial fisheries managed for long term sustainability and economic wealth.

In our capacity as a shareholder in fisheries management stakeholder groups Sanford has also participated in the discussions leading to the submissions lodged by the Deepwater Group, Fisheries Inshore and Southern Inshore.

~~BAR 5 Sanford has 39% of the quota shares in this stock. We note that the TACC is generally close to fully caught and CPUE remains high. There is no evidence to suggest a sustainability concern.~~

~~Sanford supports Option 3.~~

~~JMA 3 Sanford has 23% of the quota shares in this stock. We note that this is traditionally a low caught stock with no sustainability concerns.~~

~~Sanford supports quo.~~

~~SCI 2 Sanford has 55% of quota shares in this stock.~~

~~Sanford supports Option 2, a measured TACC increase of 20t.~~

~~SQU 1J Sanford has 36% of the quota shares in this stock. We note that there are no sustainability issues.~~

~~Sanford supports Option three, and over the next year dialogue with quota owners as to the longer term management (potential streamlining of both SQU 1 J and SQI 1T quota shares).~~

~~BNS all stocks Sanford has 9% of the quota ownership in BNS1; 17% of the quota ownership in BNS2; and 20% of the quota ownership in BNS7.~~

~~119 Sanford supports the Fisheries Inshore hybrid option, Option 1a.~~

~~Reason The 2011 MPI Fisheries Management Review was the first indication industry had that the BNS stocks needed a significant TAC reduction to rebuild to a Harvest Strategy Target of BO40.~~

At that time with the rebuild target in the forefront of our mind, the submission industry presented to MPI included a comprehensive scope of work that would see the development of BNS Management Procedures and a series of Management Rules that would guide TACC adjustments. The submission was undersigned by BNS quota owners, all of who shared the view that seasonal incremental adjustments to the TACC were more likely to achieve sustainable management (from an ecological and a social and economic perspective) than infrequently large swings up or down that would result in job losses.

In 2013 coordination of the Industry’s BNS Management Procedures project was picked up by Fisheries Inshore, who worked with Trident Systems to develop the Management Procedures (and rules) that would be supported by a catch sampling programme.

The Procedures (and the rules) were presented to MPI in 2014, and went through a MPI science working group review in 2015. Not once in the last three years has MPI fisheries managers indicated that they did not support the BNS Procedures, and in fact MPI has commissioned NIWA to go on and develop Management Procedures for SNA1.

~~Since 2011 quota owners have not only endorsed the development of the BNS Procedures they have paid for the comprehensive catch sampling programme.~~

It is absolutely unacceptable that the MPI 2016 Management Review has given scant regard to the Management Procedures, and that none of the TACC Options put forward by the Ministry reflects the Management rules, which would be Option 1a.

~~Option 1a represents a prudent and responsive TACC adjustment that is supported by science. It is justified, reasoned and understood. Option 1a is expected and can be planned for.~~

Furthermore, Sanford does not support the Ministry’s proposal to only reduce the commercial sector’s catch allocation; this does not send a sustainability message to customary and recreational fishers. These sectors also have a role to play in achieving sustainable management of the fishery and share a responsibility to fish with caution.

~~Should you have any questions about the Sanford submission we welcome your phone call.~~

~~With thanks Alison Undorf-Lay~~

~~120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 Submission regarding SNA-7 review of snapper TAC 2016~~

In view of the prolonged and excessive overfishing of SNA7 from 1950 until the mid 1980s by commercial fishing it would be unwise to allow an increase in the commercial TAC now. Just as the snapper stocks are growing in abundance to a level of just 29% of the SBₒ level is no signal to allow an increase in the commercial TAC. The target biomass of 40% of the Sbₒ is a dubious goal for MPI. Why has this target been chosen? Surely a much higher threshold should be set to allow for safety. Successful spawning and recruitment of snapper is a very uncertain factor of SNA7. The MPI itself states that the stock projections are driven by continued increase in the biomass of the 2007 year class. The increase is clearly erratic due to the variable spawning and recruitment. MPI also acknowledges that further sampling of age composition would give information regarding the relative strength of these year classes. Where is the evidence that further sampling has been completed?

In my opinion, based on the rather unconvincing evidence presented, a much higher biomass threshold target is therefore necessary to safeguard the future stocks. Without sufficient knowledge of the age structure of the snapper biomass MPI should err on the side of caution. Another reason to maintain existing TAC for commercial fishers is the lack of a reliable index of abundance when MPI assesses the snapper biomass. To quote MPI “The Working Group concluded that an assessment should not repeated for SNA7 until a reliable index of abundance is available.” We cannot be sure what the actual biomass is and that would make it foolhardy to increase the commercial TAC.

Commercial demands for increased TAC must be tempered by the need for a conservative approach to the snapper TAC. Glenn Simmons recent report, using a variety of data sources, highlights the need to maintain the brakes on commercial fishers as they have grossly overfished using incredibly wasteful practices including dumping fish to either avoid paying deemed value or to catch better sized fish. A recent MPI report actually endorse the points raised in his report citing the failure of MPI to prosecute even though they had video evidence of fish dumping. Until guaranteed controls are in place to prevent such practices no latitude can be given to the commercial fishers. Until improved nets that allow undersized fish to escape unharmed are mandatory and video surveillance is fully operational and being actively policed by MPI, commercial catch must remain at present levels. It is important to maintain a supply of fresh fish to the local consumers through commercial fishers but there are slim and uncertain grounds to allow an increase in their TAC.

MPI should be enforcing the use of long lines by commercial fishers within 5 kilometers of the coast for catching high value fish such as snapper. This will ensure a higher quality product for consumers and much less by-catch wastage. It will also shift the trawling fleet away from the shallower spawning waters and reduce the potential clash of interests with recreational fishers. Maritime rules dictate that smaller craft must defer to bigger vessels which means that they are obliged to move out of the path of trawlers. Longline fishing only by commercial fishers within 5 km of the coast would substantially eliminate the potential clashes.

Recreational fishers are taking well in excess of the 90 tonnes allocated. There are many more people fishing in Tasman Bay and Golden Bay than was formerly the case. It is no wonder that recreational fishers are making the most of the improved snapper stocks because for 30 years they have been denied the opportunity to fish. Due to shameful overfishing by commercial fishers throughout the 1970s and 1980s snapper stocks were plundered and recreational fishers were

128 denied the chance to fish successfully in Tasman Bay in particular. Since commercial fishers were directly responsible for the depletion of snapper stocks it seems only fair to restrict them to the 200 tonne TAC. Recreational fishers have waited a long time for the recovery and now that it is happening it is their turn to enjoy fishing in the bay with good chances of success. The growing number of recreational fishers must be giving a huge boost to the local economy but it also means that the recreational TAC is being exceeded. From an economic stance the recreational catch generates a very high return to the local economy through boat purchase, boat maintenance, fuel, bait, ice, fishing equipment, accommodation, boat ramp fees etc. Commercial fishing gives a limited return to the local community although it certainly lines the pockets of the few at the top of the food chain. MPI need to reset the recreational TAC to an equal weighting with commercial that is 200 tonnes each while customary TAC should also be increased for the same reasons as for recreational TAC.

MPI need to endorse and financially support the smart phone application which encourages recreational fishers to log their catch. MPI would need to have access to this data. This would offer MPI a more reliable indication of the actual recreational catch by extrapolating the results of those recreational fishers using the application across the known recreational fisher population. On the basis of these results MPI would be in a position to adjust the recreational TAC to a realistic level. The daily bag limit of 10 snapper per person should be maintained.

My submission recommends the following proposals: 1. Leave the commercial TAC for SNA7 at 200 tonnes. 2. Increase the recreational TAC from 90 to 200 tonnes. 3. Increase the customary TAC from 16 to 30 tonnes. 4. Use of longlines for catching commercial snapper within 5km of the coast becomes mandatory. 5. MPI enforce the regulations regarding fish dumping by prosecuting offenders. 6. MPI endorse the use of smart phone applications to report recreational fish catches by promoting their practice and offering incentives for their use.

~~Bruce Reid~~

~~129 July 13th 2016 SUBMISSION ON THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS:~~

~~Review of Management Controls for PAU 7 and SNA 7 in 2016~~

1. The NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council (NZ RLIC) takes the opportunity to comment on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ discussion documents Review of Management Controls for the Paua 7 and SNA 7 fisheries in 2016.

2. The NZ RLIC represents the rock lobster industry and is the umbrella organisation for regional rock lobster fishing industry groups known as CRAMACs. CRAMAC members include quota share and ACE owners and commercial rock lobster fishermen in each of the nine management areas.

~~PROPORTIONAL NOT PREFERENTIAL~~

3. This submission is directed principally to an issue of significance for the wider rock lobster industry and records our strong disagreement with the TAC setting approach proposed by the Ministry particularly as it relates to preferential allocation within the TAC as intended for SNA 7.

4. The NZ RLIC supports a proportional allocation of available yields between the recreational and commercial sectors after other factors are taken into account. Whenever TACs are adjusted the TACC and recreational allowance ideally should be effectively adjusted in a proportional manner.

5. Although the Fisheries Act provides the Minister with discretion when allocating the TAC for a stock we contend (and we endorse the Paua Industry Council submission in this regard) that the Act contains a strong implicit preference for proportional allocation because compared to non- proportional approaches, proportional allocation is implicitly bound up in the underlying objectives of the QMS;

~~ The QMS relies upon the incentives provided to quota owners by secure property rights.~~

~~130 2~~

 Allocation decisions which give preference to recreational fishing at the expense of the commercial sector, as MPI proposes for PAU 7 and SNA 7, create uncertainty about the availability of future commercial harvest levels.

 This reduces incentives for investment in the fishery and makes co-operation among quota share and ACE owners more challenging because management efforts made today may not deliver any future rewards. This is a significant ongoing issue already being confronted by CRA 2 and CRA 5 industry representatives.

6. The preferential allocation approach proposed by MPI for PAU 7 and SNA 7 directly increases the risks to sustainable management of fisheries by reallocating available yield away from a tightly managed, well monitored commercial fishing regime to recreational fishing which is essentially unmonitored and unconstrained in terms of aggregate total removals.

7. In the SNA 7 Review document, MPI strangely tries to argue that preferential allocation (Option 2) will incentivize “working together to ensure all fishers are satisfied with the fishing experience and the management of SNA 7”. The NZ RLIC argues that it will not; that a reallocation of available yield away from the commercial users is grossly irresponsible and inequitable and will breed resentment not partnership; and that the MPI intention to pander to a recreational priority and preference without implementing effective monitoring and audit measures will confound the essential statutory management responsibility to enable utilisation whilst ensuring sustainability.

~~8. The NZ RLIC strongly supports the PIC statement that in the absence of any compelling counter- argument in favour of preferential allocation, proportional allocation should be the norm.~~

9. MPI does not make a compelling case to deviate from proportional allocation. The MPI states (S.6, p.11) that for SNA 7 a proposed 50:50 allocation recognizes the value of snapper for recreational fishers in this area, which historically hasn’t translated to catches because the stock was depleted. The inference is that the recreational sector was the only sector which operated with catch constraints – which is demonstrably not true.

10. The inference from MPI underpins their justification for a recreational preference and extends to also imply that the commercial sector was individually and collectively solely responsible for depletion. This too is not true. The commercial sector fished SNA 7 according to the rules in place; and still does. The constraints placed on the commercial sector since 1986 (low TACCs and effort controls) coupled with stock recruitments over time have enabled stock abundance to increase to the point where a TAC increase is now possible.

~~131 3~~

11. MPI ignores the exponential growth of the recreational fishing sector over time and the increased efficiency and range of the recreational fishing fleet. MPI seems to concede that aggregate recreational removals have been unmanaged. MPI now seeks to reward catches in excess of allowances made for them in previous TAC setting. The current SNA 7 TAC Option 2 proposal appears to be a ‘device’ being used by MPI to defer any serious consideration of effective non-commercial catch controls. Those unmanaged landings clearly have an impact as to the way and the rate at which stock abundance increases to be at or above Bmsy level. That is the statutory obligation when setting the TAC.

12. MPI concedes that the recreational sector has increased catches over time and now presses up against or exceeds the allowance made in a 1997 TAC decision. Over the same period commercial catches have been effectively constrained but ‘despite reports of decreased targeting, the TACC for SNA 7 has been overcaught by ~4-8% over the last five years’. In effect the recreational sector has been able to build catch history since 1997 whilst for the past five years at least the commercial sector has been forced to be increasingly inefficient and has also paid financial penalties for exceeding the TACC.

13. MPI agrees (Option 2 of Review) that the SNA 7 TAC can increase from 306 tonnes to 545 tonnes. MPI also agrees that the recreational sector is now apparently routinely taking or assumed to be exceeding the 90 tonnes allowance made in previous TAC setting. The commercial sector is taking only the TACC. The most recent assessment confirms that there are more fish available to be landed and in our view the sector allowances must be proportionally increased after an equitable provision is made for customary take and a nominal allowance made for other sources of fishing related mortalities.

~~14. An equitable TAC/TACC decision could therefore be:~~

~~TAC TACC Customary Recreational Other Mortality 545 300 30 190 25~~

15. In the allocation option above, the recreational and commercial sectors share the available abundance after reasonable allowances are made for customary take and separately, for other sources of fishing related mortalities.

16. The NZ RLIC shared fisheries allocation option above properly recognizes the contribution that both sectors have made to the apparent stock rebuild; is a version of ‘shared fisheries’ allocation which places as much incentive (and accountability) on one sector as it does on the other; and is equitable and defensible in the context of the contemporary history of administration and management of the SNA 7 stock.

~~132 4~~

17. It is also defensible in the context of the exponential growth of the recreational fishing industry participation over time and the increased range, efficiency and effectiveness of recreational participants.

~~ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF A TAC~~

~~18. However, the NZ RLIC remains concerned that MPI seeks to reward recreational removals in excess of the provision in the current TACs rather than implement any meaningful action to constrain them.~~

~~19. We contend that proportional allocation is meaningless in the absence of active measures to:~~

~~ Accurately monitor and audit the removals taken by every sector; and~~

 Ensure that the recreational harvest is constrained within the allowances made. In our view it would be grossly irresponsible of the Minister to agree any increase to the SNA 7 non-commercial allowances without concurrent and effective management controls being implemented.

20. We strongly agree the PIC submission that the best available information requires MPI to take immediate action to reduce the recreational bag limit for paua as recommended by PauaMAC 7, even if the current allowance remains unchanged when setting a new PAU 7 TAC.

~~PAU 7~~

21. The NZ RLIC supports the Paua Industry Council (PIC) submission and strongly endorse the submission of PauaMAC 7 Industry Association Inc., including PauaMAC 7’s recommendations that the Minister should: a) Reduce the PAU 7 TACC by 50% to 94 tonnes (i.e., midway between MPI’s options 2 and 3); b) Reduce the recreational allowance by 50% to 7.5 tonnes to support the effective operation of the QMS and ensure sustainability; c) Urgently reduce the daily bag limit for recreational harvest to 6 paua to constrain recreational harvest to the recreational allowance; and d) Increase compliance effort in the fishery to support the rebuilding of the stock.

~~133 5~~

~~SNA 7~~

22. In regards to SNA 7 the NZ RLIC supports a TAC increase but does not support Option 2 proposed by MPI. The rationale for the option is seriously flawed and the MPI view of proportionality as expressed in the Review document is rejected by the NZ RLIC.

23. There is no justification for a 50:50 split in the TAC constituting the definition of a ‘shared’ fishery – the notion likely arises from an historical utterance of Ministerial preference for SNA 1 in circumstances where extractive recreational use of that stock was assumed to be coincidentally close to the confirmed commercial landings.

24. Until such time as allocation principles are more formally established and agreed MPI should not presume them. Equity and fairness demand that increased abundance be shared and that accountability for sustainability and utilisation targets being met will also be shared.

~~25. That any TAC will go up and down over time is a given and MPI must therefore assign greater priority to ensuring that agreed management outcomes are not jeopardized by –~~

~~a) a failure to adequately audit and monitor all extractive use (as already done for the customary and commercial sectors) and~~

~~b) the absence of effective mechanisms to constrain aggregate catches to the allowances made for them (as also done to the commercial sector).~~

~~26. With that in mind, and whilst acknowledging no prior consultation with any SNA 7 commercial representatives, the NZ RLIC:~~

~~a) supports a TAC increase for SNA 7, and~~

~~b) supports a proportional increase in the recreational and commercial allowances as summarised in paragraph 13 of this submission.~~

~~On behalf of the NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council~~

~~Daryl Sykes Executive Officer~~

~~134 Phil Appleyard President NZ Sport Fishing Council PO Box 207-012 Hunua 2254 [email protected]~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6011 [email protected]~~

~~9 July 2016~~

~~NZ Sport Fishing Council submission on the review of management controls for the Snapper 7 fishery (SNA7) for 1 October 2016~~

Recommendations 1. The Minister increases the Total Allowable Catch to cover the sum of existing use, as follows: a. Increases the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) from 306 tonnes to 490 tonnes; b. Retains the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) at 200 tonnes; c. Increases the allowance for Maori customary non-commercial interests, from 16 to 20 tonnes; d. Increases the allowance for recreational interests, from 90 to 250 tonnes; and e. Establishes an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality, at 20 tonnes. 2. The Minister acknowledges that: a. There has been a long overdue increase in snapper biomass in Tasman and Golden Bays based on one or two strong year classes; b. The stock assessment is dominated by commercial fisheries data from Tasman and Golden Bays and does not capture the poor state of snapper stocks in the rest of SNA7; c. The recreational harvest of snapper in Tasman and Golden Bays will have increased and must be allowed for; d. New information on recreational harvest is currently being collected using proven survey methods; and e. There is hope that the stock will continue to recover and new strong year classes will follow. Close monitoring of snapper recruitment and harvest by all sectors will be required to ensure the stock has the best chance of reaching the management target. 3. The Ministry for Primary Industries work with all stakeholders in the SNA7 fishery to develop an appropriate monitoring and management strategy.

NZ Sport Fishing Council - LEGASEA 1. The New Zealand Sport Fishing Council and our outreach LegaSea (the submitters) appreciate the opportunity to submit on the review of management controls for Snapper 7. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) released their Discussion Paper on 10 June 2016 with submissions due by 11 July. Any changes will apply from 1 October 2016.

SNA7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 1 135 2. The NZ Sport Fishing Council is a national sports organisation with over 32,000 affiliated members from 57 clubs nationwide. The Council has initiated LegaSea to generate widespread awareness and support for the need to restore abundance in our inshore marine environment. Also, to broaden NZSFC involvement in marine management advocacy, research, education and alignment on behalf of our members and LegaSea supporters. www.legasea.co.nz

3. The submitters are committed to ensuring that sustainability measures and environmental management controls are designed and implemented to achieve the Purpose and Principles of the Fisheries Act 1996, including “maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations…” [s8(2)(a) Fisheries Act 1996]

4. The submitters continue to object to the Ministry’s tight, 21 working day consultation timetable. In our view this timeframe does not allow for adequate consultation, it is particularly offensive for non- commercial organisations such as ours that need to consult with a range of interests and volunteers. This is unacceptable consultation and, in our opinion most likely unlawful as per ss 12 and 13 of the Fisheries Act and as judged by the Court of Appeal1.

5. NZSFC representatives are available to discuss this submission in more detail if required. We look forward to positive outcomes from this review and would like to be kept informed of future developments. Our contact is Dave Lockwood, [email protected].

Snapper 6. Snapper occupy a wide range of habitats, including rocky reefs and areas of mud and sandy bottom. They are serial spawners, releasing many batches of eggs during spring and summer. Snapper first reach maturity from 20 to 28 cm fork length at 3-4 years of age. Water temperature appears to play an important part in spawning success and subsequent recruitment of legal size fish. Generally, strong year classes correspond to warm years and weak classes correspond to cold years. The snapper from Tasman Bay/Golden Bay (and the west coast North Island) grow faster and reach a larger average size than elsewhere.

Snapper 7 management 7. MPI is reviewing the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) and allowances for Snapper 7 (SNA7). The TACC was reduced from 374 t to 160.3 t in 1990. The stock was thought to be increasing in 1997 and the TACC was increased to 200 t.

~~8. Commercial snapper catch comes mostly from Tasman and Golden Bays largely from a mixed species trawl fishery, targeting snapper, flatfish and barracouta.~~

9. A recreational allowance of 90 t and a customary allowance of 16 t was set in 1997 for the first time. The National Panel Survey estimated recreational harvest in the 2011/12 fishing year to be 89 t for SNA7. This was based on about 111,000 fish with an average weight of just 0.8 kg from boat ramp surveys.

10. MPI believe that the recreational snapper harvest has increased significantly since 2011/12. This is in line with the new stock assessment that estimates a threefold increase in biomass in recent years, and early indications from a new harvest survey which shows an increase in the size and number of snapper kept by recreational fishers. The minimum legal size is 25 cm for all methods and recreational daily bag limit is 10 per person, except in the Marlborough Sounds where the daily bag limit is three per person.

~~1 International Airport Ltd and Air New Zealand (CA 23/92, 73/92[1993] 1 NZLR 671).~~

~~SNA7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 2 136~~

~~11. The proposed options for the future management of SNA7 follows –~~

12. Option 2 is for a substantial increase in the total allowable catch (TAC). The commercial catch would increase by 50 t (25%). The largest change would be to the recreational allowance with an increase of 160 t (78%). MPI say this will better align it with estimated recreational harvest and shift the ratio between commercial and recreational fisheries from 70/30 to 50/50. MPI also say: “The increased recreational share acknowledges not only the change in estimated catches but the relative value of the fishery to recreational fishers which was not provided for while the fishery was more depleted.”

New Stock assessment 13. There has been a large increase in commercial catch rate of snapper, mainly from Tasman and Golden Bays and not Marlborough Sounds, and this is supported by independent NIWA trawl survey data. An ageing study shows a very successful spawning season in 2007 has boosted the population. A stock assessment in 2014 showed a rapid increase in biomass. More information was collected and a new assessment in 2015 came to the same conclusion (Figure 2).

~~Figure 2: The estimated track of snapper 7 biomass from about 100 % in 1935 to about 29% in 2015. Also shown is the 4 year projected biomass (red) to 2019 and the interim target of 40% (B40).~~

~~SNA7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 3 137~~

14. Figure 2 shows this stock was over fished in the 1970s and 1980s. The introduction of the Quota Management System and reductions in the TACC did not rebuild this fishery. In fact, the biomass remained below 10% of the unfished biomass (B10) for 25 years. During this time the commercial catches and catch rate (CPUE) remained stable. This is a graphic example of sustainable depletion.

15. The stock assessment model assumes that recreational catch follows the same track as biomass since 1987 and passes through recent harvest estimates. This assumption means that a significant increase in recreational catch over the last 4 years is already factored into the model.

Future management 16. The stock assessment model shows that SNA7 stock has been below the hard limit (B10) for 25 years and predicts a sharp increase in biomass based on one or two strong year classes. Historically recruitment has been fickle in SNA7 and there is no guarantee that the current rebuild will be sustained. The same spawning success and recruitment has not occurred in the Marlborough Sounds. In fact the MPI Snapper Plenary report states that the Marlborough Sounds is a separate stock (Section 6). The assessment is dominated by the catch, trawl CPUE since 1989–90, and recruitment from Tasman and Golden Bays, and does not reflect abundance in other areas of SNA7.

17. The submitters are pleased that, finally, nature has stepped in and restored an important part of the snapper fishery in SNA7. This increase was not due to any management change or change in fishing practice. The quota has been at 200 t for 16 years and the only change in fishing practice was to let pair trawlers back into Tasman Bay.

~~18. Commercial fishers complain that they are finding it difficult to avoid snapper bycatch when targeting flatfish, red cod, barracouta, gurnard and tarakihi.~~

19. In a previous IPP figures were given for the commercial fishery which caught 48% of snapper by targeted bottom trawl and bottom pair trawl. Around 52% is “bycatch” mostly from bottom trawls, with small amounts from Danish seining, mid-water trawl and set nets.

20. Moreover, the NZSFC does not accept a TACC increase based on this “bycatch” issue. It is not “bycatch”. These snapper may be classed as unintended, discarded or unmanaged catch, but these operators know the waters they fish and they generally know when and where they catch different species throughout the year, so to suggest this is “bycatch” and they need an increased TACC to cover it is not reasonable. What commercial operators seem to need is a better catch portfolio to cover what they are likely to catch in Area 7.

21. The Minister cannot reasonably manage the 200 t SNA7 fishery in isolation of other species with TACCs that do not constrain catch. For example, the TACC for flatfish is 2,066 t, ten times the snapper TACC, and from 2000 to 2014/15 the amount of flatfish caught ranges from 21% to 68% of the TACC. The Red cod (RCO7) TACC is 3,126 t, and from 2000 to 2014/15 catch varied from 40% to 109%. So not only is the RCO7 TACC 15 times larger than the SNA7 quota, it does not constrain commercial effort anyway.

22. In Tasman and Golden Bays the snapper biomass may have been about B29 in 2015 but the same increase has not been reported in Marlborough Sounds or the West Coast where there is limited trawl data. Therefore, the overall SNA7 biomass will be less than the model predicts. The submitters do not support an increase in the SNA7 TACC at this time.

~~23. When there is some certainty that the interim target of B40 can be reached across all of SNA7, that will be the time to revisit the commercial allocation.~~

SNA7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 4 138 Recreational interests 24. Snapper is a very important species in the recreational fishery at the top of the South Island. The National Panel Survey estimated the amateur harvest of snapper was 88 t in 2011/12. The harvest estimates for other species from that survey were 77 t for blue cod 7, 32 t for trevally 7, 23 t for tarakihi and 20 t for kingfish 7. The strong 2007 year class was just starting to show up in the catch as 4 year olds in 2011 and the average snapper weight used in the survey for SNA7 that year was 0.80 kg, the lowest in the country. This is not typical for the area which usually has the highest average weight snapper in amateur harvest surveys – 2.1 to 2.4 kg average weights were recorded in surveys during the 1990s. So even without much increase in the number of snapper caught the amateur harvest will increase as these fish grow.

25. A recent survey conducted by Southwick Associates (Florida) estimates that $1.7 billion of economic activity is generated by marine recreational fishers in New Zealand2. This contributes $638 million in GDP and supports 8,100 (full time equivalent) jobs. Based on the target species reported by survey participants, snapper fishing generates over 40% of that activity. With the low bag limits and seasonal closures of the blue cod fishery in the Marlborough Sounds and collapse of the scallop stocks we can expect increased interest in snapper as a recreational target species in Fisheries Management Area 7.

26. New amateur harvest estimates for the main areas in SNA7 will be available early in 2017 from the NIWA survey currently underway. Web cameras have been installed on two high-use boat ramps (Nelson and Waikawa). These will be part of ongoing monitoring of boat traffic 365 days a year, with 60 days of face to face surveys to measure catch and fishing effort. The National Panel Survey will be run again in 2017/18 providing another source of harvest information including land based methods.

27. The submitters support an allowance for recreational harvest that will cover what the Minister believes recreational fishers may reasonably be expected to catch. Current estimates are 250 t but this may change when the results of the NIWA aerial overflight and ramp surveys are finalised in March 2017.

28. Recreational fishers are increasingly aware of the need to conserve fish and are generally willing to do so. It will be important to engage with local and visiting fishers to ensure that both the right messages are getting out and that this opportunity to rebuild this stock to the target biomass is not lost.

29. Future management may include a seasonal reduction in daily bag limits to enable the available fish to be shared amongst the influx of visitors to Area 7 during peak holiday times. However, bold initiatives to rebuild and protect the fishery will only succeed if current management is perceived as fair and reasonable.

~~Customary interests~~

~~30. Maori customary fishers may also find that snapper is once again available for purposes of manaakitanga, and an increase in the allowance for customary fishers to 20 t is warranted.~~

~~Other mortality~~

31. The allowance of other sources of fishing mortality needs to be set at the best estimate of what it will be. MPI estimates of 20 to 25 t may be adequate but these tonnages do not seem to be based on any data or analysis. Having a record of the commercial discards of undersize snapper (using the code SNX) may help provide some data. This could also provide an early indication of strong or weak year classes that are about to recruit to the fishery.

~~2 Recreational Fishing in New Zealand – A Billion Dollar Industry. March 2016.~~

~~SNA7 submission. New Zealand Sport Fishing Council. 9 July 2016. 5 139 SNAPPER 7 SUBMISSION~~

Firstly thank you MPI for the opportunity to make a submission on this very important issue. I also appreciated the excellent information that is available through posters and your website. After considering all the Pro and Cons my submission supports; Option One (Status Quo)

~~RATIONALE~~

• The rapid decline from the 100% Biomass figure in 1930 is very apparent, leading to the Biomass being below the critical 10% level from the late 1980’s to 2010. The increase has therefore only occurred over the last six years. Additionally it would appear that a significant contributor to this increase was a strong 2007 spawning year. Your papers also mention the importance of the 2010 spawning year which cannot be measured until the 2016/17 year. The stock is now estimated to be at the 29% level which is still 11% below the interim target of 40%. The estimate is that it will reach 35% in 2018/19. At this point I believe it would be premature to increase the Total Allowable Catch. This is the first time we have seen an increase in Snapper Stocks in 80 years, why the hurry! • I have concerns regarding the Recreational levels. I would agree that the Total Catch is probably above 90 ton but the science in measuring this accurately is not robust. In your own words “Currently the risk of exceeding the TAC does not pose a significant sustainability risk”. In addition, to increase the Recreational Catch to 250 ton means nothing unless there is accurate measurements in place. I appreciate that aerial overflights, boat ramp interviews and web based cameras can assist with data. However the most effective measure is to have recreational boats complete a catch record and this could be introduced. Perhaps by way of an interactive web site. In my experience recreational fisherman are only too willing to assist with fish data. • There are other management options which I think should be considered that are not mentioned in your “Management Controls for the Snapper 7 Fishery”. I note that “No immediate regulatory controls are being proposed in this review” and I question this approach. Having a minimum size limit of 25cms, in my view, is absolutely unnecessary. A Snapper of this size produces very little eatable flesh and in my experience most recreational fishers do not take Snapper under 30 cms. I note that Snapper become sexually mature between 20cms and 28cms. If the minimum size was increased to 30cms then the biomass would increase and so would the number of spawning fish. This change would be applauded by recreational fishers and surely commercial interests would also see this as a benefit to the fishery. • In Summary I believe the proposal to increase the TAC is premature for the reasons stated above. It is too soon and the science is not exact enough, so why would we risk damaging a fishery which is showing such encouraging signs.

~~Peter Johnson s 9(2)(a)~~

~~140 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Stephen Bishop ~~Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2016 2:23 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Cc: s 9(2)(a) Subject: 1 OCTOBER SUSTAINABILITY ROUND~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Independent Fisheries Ltd makes the following comments on stocks that effect us, in relation to the 1 October 2016 sustainability round.~~

~~1.BAR5 We support Option 3 being an increase of the TACC to 9,280 tonnes. We believe the CPUE analysis and consistent catches in this fishery support a TACC increase.~~

~~2.RBY3~~

It appears our Company vessels have been responsible for the majority of the RBY3 catches.These catches have occurred when targeting RBT3. On 10 and 11 October 2014 one of our vessels had 2 trawl shots of 10 tonne and 4 tonne respectively of RBY3. A year later on 13 October 2015 one vessel had a trawl shot of 27 tonnes of RBY3. Very little information is known or available on this fishstock and unlikely to be obtained given the rare frequency of catches. IFL believe that the TACC could be increased significantly higher than the options being consulted on and propose a TACC of 60 tonnes.

~~SQU1J~~

The only reason the SQU1J fishstock is not caught is because there are no jiggers available. There is no sustainability issue if the TACC remains at its current level. As stated by MPI there is no scientific information on the current or future biomass of this fishstock. To reduce a Quota because its not being caught is not good fisheries management. IFLs preference is for the SQU1J and SQU1T Quotas to be amalgamated into a SQU1 Quota and the method restriction abolished.We realise this requires Quota Owners approval under the Fisheries Act and by relevant Stakeholder Group. We request that MPI formally consider this as an option for future management and seek industrys support/comment.

~~JMA3~~

We support the retention of the current TACC. JMA3 covers a massive area of New Zealands EEZ being Quota Management Areas 3,4,5 and 6. Historically IFL vessels have only targeted JMA3 in a few discrete locations.These target zones have been around the Mernoo Bank ,off Timaru, off Stewart Island and recently around the Chatham Islands when targeting BAR4. JMA fish marks are generally spotted when our vessels are targeting BAR or RBT. Only a very small portion of the QMAs available have been investigated for JMA3. Vessels only target JMA3 if JMA marks are seen,if squid fishing is poor or if other more preferred fishstocks are not available for capture. We believe that the higher capture years of JMA3 have occurred when squid fishing has been poor. From fishing over the last 2 years around the Chatham Islands, we believe that other areas in QMA4 could contain significant JMA3 stock. Further exploratory fishing of JMA3 around the Chathams has not been possible with the limited BAR4 quota. Our vessel Captains also report sizeable JMA marks within the closed area of QMA3 on the east coast of the South Island but the fish will only move outside the closed area under the right climatic conditions. MPI will be aware that over the years there has been a reduction in the number of vessels capable of catching JMA3. If the TACC is reduced this would stop more future development of the JMA3 fishery. In our opinion there is no sustainability issue to retaining the current TACC albeit that in most years the TACC will not be caught. 1 141

~~SFE13~~

~~We support a TACC increase in the SFE13 TACC to 134.122 tonnes from the current TACC of 121.929.~~

~~Thanks Stephen~~

~~Stephen Bishop | Fleet Operations Manager Independent Fisheries Ltd s 9(2)(a)~~

~~2 142 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Troy Dando ~~on behalf of s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 2:53 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission for Sna7 - Troy Dando~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Submission for Sna7~~

~~Background I have fished in Tasman Bay all my life and have seen it go from a productive fishery when I was just a small child to getting decimated in the 70’s from commercial over fishing.~~

As a child I would fish from the Back Beach at Tahunanui and along Rocks Road always catching nice snapper and living the dream as a child. When the snapper were decimated with over fishing it was still a favourite thing to go fishing but of course things had changed.

The amount of people fishing dwindled off and it was only the abundance of the scallops that kept people heading out on the water, taking their kids to get a haul of scallops and hopefully catch a feed of fish, snapper always being at the top of that list of “the ones to catch”

Most trips resulted in no snapper for the majority of recreational fisherman as those big fish just didn’t come into the shallows in big enough numbers for people to catch consistently as before. Yes we went fishing, but there was always a massive hole not catching a snapper, something that has stuck in my mind all these years, and something I would not like to see again.

As a kiwi recreational fisherman it is my right to be able to go out fishing and I should be confident with the people that have been put in charge to manage the fishery in a way that ALL recreational fisherman don’t suffer like I had to for the majority of my life and face a 30 year drought because of just a couple of years of in‐action and mis‐management of the fishery.

I also have been a commercial fisherman in Tasman Bay for a few years in the 1980’s so are very aware of what happens when a trawl is dragged along the bottom and the amount of by catch and destruction this form of fishing can do.

I am a firm believer commercial fisherman also have a right to harvest fish and make a living as well but I do not believe it should be at the expense of recreational fisherman who also are trying to feed family’s and create childhood memories that will last a life time.

This is more than just setting a TAC, its about getting our kids off their arses and putting down the Xbox and play stations. It’s about getting them to lift their heads up, smell the fresh salt air, catching a good fish which will create passion and enthusiasm to get up at 4am and go develop some social skills. There’s a bigger picture, it’s about creating growth in our youth, our family’s and ultimately our community’s. Everyone wins!

~~Recommendation~~

Commercial Catch The fishery has only just started recovering and yes there have been a couple of year classes that have injected a big boost in the recovery but even your own data is inconclusive if this is sustainable or just one off events. My view it would be foolish to now start increasing the TACC without us hitting the bio‐mass target so I reject any increase in to the raising of commercial catch. When the new report comes in 2019 I think there will be better data to re‐look then to see if any lifting of the TACC is warranted. Remembering this is about a long term sustainable fishery, not about catching everything in the water up until the point the fishery starts to decline. A buffer is needed so in the event of a string of bad spawning years the fishery does not collapse as we have seen before.

1 143 Charter vessels returns for this area need to be taken into consideration as well using a 2kg per fish weigh as we have seen over many fishing competitions in the area that 2kg is about the average fish weight weighed in. A blossoming charter boat explosion has started in the area with many new ventures popping up so all declared fish should be counted.

Recreational Catch The snapper fishery is the only fishery that recreational sector compete head to head for the lions share. Commercials have dozens of other fisheries that they get the lion share and the cash reward that goes with it. If there was one thing that would go a long way to creating more buy in for the recreational fisherman is to give them back the lion’s share of the fishery that means the most to them. Its not about money for the recreational sector, it’s about families, social activities, food gathering and just being a kiwi. Money doesn’t come into it.

I believe the recreational catch needs to be looked at and increased to be better reflective to what is happening now and closer to what it was back in the 70’s after all this is where we are heading for bio‐mass.

I believe it should be raised to 250 ton in the short term which I believe is still more than likely less than what is already getting caught in the bay. My own figures put the catch at around 300 ton. This should be relooked at in 2019 once better data is available.

The fact is there is some evidence (although not guaranteed) there is a rebuild starting to happen and any small increase should go towards raising the recreational catch amount. This doesn’t mean we get to take any more fish home it just reflects boats that were sold back when the fishery collapsed are starting to come back to fish again now there are fish starting to show up again.

~~The minimum fish size should be raised for both commercial sector and recreational sector to 30cm~~

~~Maori Customary catch should also be increased to 20 tons~~

~~No change to commercial TACC as any lifting in catch will result in more fish being targeted which is a little premature at this stage.~~

Other considerations The population of Nelson is increasing which means boat ownership is increasing as well. The marina is currently at maximum capacity and all areas gazetted for mooring boats are also totally full. Fishing clubs are starting to get a revival in numbers with more people starting to take to the water because the snapper numbers have increased and that there is now for the first time in over 30 years a 75% chance you could catch a snapper if you went fishing in a boat. (snapper numbers along Rocks Road and the Back beach are still very low compared to the 1970”s)

It is foreseeable that the TAC for recreational fisherman while need to be increased significantly in the next few years to allow for the increased population and up‐take of boating again. Along with the building fishery other measures should be considered to create a world class fishery.

1. Incremental rise in the minimum size of fish from 25cm – 30cm – 35cm over next 3 years 2. Introduction of a slot fishery for snapper with a reduction in bag limit a. Reduce bag limit from 10 fish to 5 fish across the SNA7 area b. Introduce a slot fishery where you are allowed a total bag of 5 fish where only one fish can be over 60cm or 5 fish between 35cm‐60cm 3. Introduction of a trawler free fishing zone (TFFZ) (variation of a recreational fishing area only) a. Zone would be South of a line from Separation Point to Ragged Point Greville Harbour and south of French Pass (this keep Golden Bay for commercial fisherman where most of their snapper and flounder are caught) b. Total ban of all bottom trawling and dredging that could destroy the natural habitat in the TFFZ until a full investigation into why there has been a reduction in scallop beds and the slow recovery of snapper

2 144 stocks. Removal of bottom cover has had a massive impact on the snapper recovery and heavy silt deposits have decimated the scallops. c. Introduce a limited commercial scallop / oyster harvesting with scuba in the TFFZ (deeper beds would naturally recover as they could not be reached for harvesting on scuba) d. Allow commercial longline fishing inside the TFFZ zone for snapper, gurnard, sharks etc. 4. Along with consultation with local Iwi amend RMA to allow construction of artificial reefs in set areas of Tasman Bay that could include the scuttling of ships, dumping of tire bundles and other non‐pollutant materials that could create habitat for juvenile fish and hold larger fish all year round. 5. Close the snapper fishery from 15th October to 15th December each year to allow a large percentage of the spawn to take place. Introduce heavy fines for those caught with fish in this time period. 6. Reporting of recreational catch should be made compulsory so we have a total picture of the fishery. 7. Introduction of boat limits for fish numbers. 5 snapper per person with a boat limit of 20 snapper total regardless of how many people on board. (charter operators would need to apply for a set amount per boat / anglers)

~~Happy to be contacted to discuss any or all of the above~~

~~Regards~~

~~Troy Dando Director ss 9(2)(a)9(2)(a)~~

~~www.ultimateadventures.co.nz www.facebook.com/TroyDandoFishingGuide www.youtube.com/fishinnelson www.tasmanbaysnapperclassic.co.nz~~

~~3 145 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Tony Orman ~~Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 2:39 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission re Top of the South Snapper~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Submission Concerning Snapper FMA 7~~

I oppose an increase in the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for Snapper 7 (SNA7), as any TACC increase will slow the rebuild of this important fishery. I support an increase in the recreational daily bag limit, from 3 to 6, applying in the Marlborough Sounds. In addition, I support the reduction of the 10 snapper recreational bag limit for Tasman and Golden Bays from 10 to 6.

~~This would in effect, see recreational giving one fish back to the resource - commendable! It would give a consistent bag limit, avoid confusion and make MPI’s compliance much easier.~~

Additional comment. The proposal to increase the recreational quota from 90 tonnes to 250 tonnes must not be just written into the books, but actually implemented by a change to the Sounds bag limit. Current managers in MPI may not be aware that in 1996 the recreational catch was draconianly and undemocratically cut from 10 to 3. I attended a meeting in Blenheim which was arrogantly chaired from memory, by a member of the Fishing Industry Board. Anger was so strong in the community that the furore resulted in the Marlborough Recreational Fishers’ Assn., being formed. I believe 10 snapper per person is too high. Six would be ideal. Nevertheless at the drop-in-sessions over recent months, I have advocated MPI should use education instead of regulation by promoting ethical practices by the recreational public. Trout Unlimited USA had a motto-“Don’t kill your limit, limit your kill.” That can well be applied to recreational fishing. I believe estimates of recreational catch of snapper have been ridiculously inflated. Counting boats from the air at holiday time is so obviously a very flawed way to survey catch effort. As a keen snapper fisherman for 50 years, I know only too well that snapper are a challenging fish for the recreational angler. They can be wary, fastidious and unpredictable unlike other species such as blue cod. Those attributes in themselves limit the recreational snapper catch as opposed to bulk commercial methods.

~~Tony Orman s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 146~~

~~8th July, 2016~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries P.O.Box 2526 Wellington 6011~~

~~Review of Management Controls for the Bluenose Fishery (BNS 1,2,3,7 & 8) in 2016 –~~

. Talley’s Group Limited is the largest privately owned, inshore fishing company in New Zealand. We own quota in the Bluenose stocks referenced, that equates to 8% of BNS2, 40% of BNS3, 17% of BNS7 and 6% of BNS8 or 10% of the entire combined TACC’s.

. Talley’s strongly support establishing management settings that maintain the sustainable harvest of fishstocks managed under our QMS and BNS is no exception. It is important to feel comfortable with the philosophy behind any management and it is our view that the current approach is becoming too prescriptive. This is an issue that both MPI and Industry should engage on further. Responding to this IPP is too simplistic in respect of this fishery. Options consist of status quo or significant TACC cuts.

. MPI need to recognise the efforts that Industry have gone to in managing these stocks and further understand that there might be more that we can do? TACC reductions are too blunt and it is our view that increased management is possible.

~~. Under the current situation we have three options to choose from and unfortunately there is no engagement about alternatives.~~

. On that basis Talley’s Group Limited support Option 1 which proposes to ; retain the combined TAC of 1,195 tonnes, retain a combined TACC 1,100 tonnes, retain a combined allowance for other sources of fishing-related mortality of 23 tonnes and make no changes for Maori customary and recreational interests.

~~. For us, Option 2 and Option 3 which promote TACC reductions of 200 tonnes and 480 tonnes are simply, NOT acceptable options.~~

. MPI take the view that this fishery is deemed to be one stock (although still not biologically proven) and have determined that a rebuilding plan initiated in 2011 needs to be based around hitting a default target of 40%B0. It was determined in 2011 that phased TACC reductions over a three year period would be the best way of introducing this.

147 . Industry received the TACC reductions over 2011 and 2012 but the Minister decided in 2013 not to implement the 3rd phase cut on the basis of new information which suggested that the biomass was increasing at a rate higher than anticipated.

. This response was both reasonable and appreciated. Anecdotal information obtained from fishermen involved in BNS fishing recently indicates that the fishery is in much better heart than the science might suggest and that it would be appropriate to maintain the Minister’s current position on this?

. It is essential that we consider ALL aspects that currently shape our thinking and eventual decision making. As responsible fisheries managers and fishermen we definitely have to make decisions that are in the best interests of the fishery. However, we are currently targeting a point in time that might not be achievable. It may be that point is simply too tough and is more aspirational than realistic or necessary.

. In three years we have gone from seeing the BNS fishery in supposed ‘dire straits’, to experiencing a noticeable recovery. Science has supported our position on this so we can feel very confident about our current position. The science in this fishery still shows that the stock is rebuilding…. just not at the level expected? However, this target is set for the next 15-20 years? We have seen an improvement in the fishery over 5 years after having taken satisfactory management intervention. We continue to track upwards in both a scientific and anecdotal sense and with further improvement with our management settings, are likely to see this continue.

. Talley’s Group Limited reject any suggestion that any further TACC reductions are needed at this time and prefer to suggest that more work in terms of CPUE assessment, scientific information (otolith readings) and collection of legitimate anecdotal information is essential if we are to make the necessary decisions. In order to achieve much of this we need to ensure that we provide sufficient economic incentive. Cutting TACC’s certainly does not provide any enthusiasm or economic initiative to do anything.

. We reiterate that our desired option, based on all that have been provided, is Option 1. We believe that this decision combined with further engagement with Industry about additional management commitments will allow the continued rebuild of the fishery, retain value in the quota and fulfil all of our expectations into the future.

~~148~~

~~Tasman and Sounds Recreational Fishers’ Association (Inc)~~

~~TASFISH~~

~~Submission July 2016~~

~~Review of Management Controls for Snapper Fishery 7 (SNA7) in 2016~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries P O Box 2526 Wellington 6011 [email protected]~~

~~149~~

~~Introduction~~

~~1. The Association can be contacted through Past President, Martyn Barlow, 45 Dawson Road, RD 1 Upper Moutere, Tasman 7173, phone (03) 540 3545, email [email protected]~~

~~2. Tasfish is committed to the sustainable use of our marine resources in the Top of the South and good management of our marine ecosystems.~~

3. Tasman Bay Amateur Marine Fishers’ Association was formed in the 1980’s in response to proposals to introduce large scale farming of scallops in the Croisilles Harbour a popular recreational fishing area on the coastline north of Nelson city. Since that time it has been renamed Tasfish and become involved in many fishery allocation and management issues affecting all the major species of interest to recreational fishers.

4. This has included being part of many of the species specific working groups set up by MFish, we have worked closely with both MFish and The Challenger Scallop Enhancement Company in ongoing management and annual allocations within the scallop fishery. We were involved in the attempts to set up multi sector Fisheries Plans for in Area 7 and we have members on the FMA7 recreational forum.

5. Increasingly in recent years we have been regularly involved in space allocation issues for marine farming and in particular limiting their placement over habitat of recreationally important species. This has included many hundreds of submissions to Marlborough District Council on Marine Farm Resource Consent applications and also to MFish on Marine Farming Permits on how these farms affect fish or fishers. Our toughest case was taking MFish to judicial review over one permit. We recognize the importance of suitable habitat for all species and accept the need for careful management of marine ecosystems.

6. Membership of Tasfish is both individual and affiliate. While individual membership is relatively low at less than 50 many of the fishing and boating clubs in the Top of the South, from Golden Bay to Nelson and the Marlborough Sounds, affiliate to Tasfish along with several ratepayer groups particularly in the Marlborough Sounds.

7. Tasfish participates as fully as possible for a voluntary organisation in the annual management rounds and in addition we have made submissions on many of the recent Bills before Parliament relating to our marine systems.

~~150~~

~~Snapper (SNA7)~~

8. MPI proposes the following options for the TAC/TACC and associated allocations. Table1 Proposed options for the TAC, TACC and allowances for SNA7 Other sources of Customary Recreational TAC (t) TACC (t) fishing related Maori (t) (t) mortality (t) Option 1 306 200 16 90 0 (Status quo) Option 2 This option includes increasing the recreational daily bag limit 545 250 20 250 25 from 3 to 5 snapper in the Marlborough Sounds

~~9. TASFISH supports Option 1 – the status quo.~~

~~10. TASFISH is seriously concerned that option 2 in this sustainability review which offers a TAC increase of 78% (239t) up from 306t is not a cautious approach.~~

11. In the review paper MPI claims SNA7 has been rebuilding rapidly over the last 5 years, yet in the SNA7 assessment by Adam Langley (Trophia Ltd) it is acknowledged “periods of moderate recruitment occur at approx.. 10 year intervals.” Langley goes onto say that “2007 recruitment was exceptional but most recent recruitments tend to be poorly estimated. It is a strong year class but we don’t know exactly how strong. We also can’t estimate the strength of the year classes that have yet to enter the fishery (and monitored by CPUE). We certainly don’t know much about future recruitment patterns.”

12. This indicates MPI in promoting a 78% increase in the TAC is justifying a massive TAC increase on 1 successful breeding year and no one knows when the next successful breeding year could be – it could be 10 years away!

13. In the 2014/15 stock assessment it is estimated SNA7 is at 29% of unfished biomass, it has taken more than 35 years for this stock to recover since it was decimated by industry in the late 1970’s and get back to this level of abundance, and for modelling to predict the stock will be at 35% of unfished biomass in 2018/19 is not only optimistic it is out of step with what has proven to be a sparodic breeding stock.

~~14. TASFISH submits that the proposed changes as offered in option 2 do put the rebuild of the fishery at risk.~~

15. There is a serious risk that these changes to the TAC/TACC in the SNA7 fish stock will hammer any newly emergent year class/es. MPI found that practice back in the days of the tagging programme was one of the reasons the area closures were set up over the summer months.

16. If the industry CPUE is increasing off the back of a strong year class then TASFISH submits that there is something wrong with the fisheries management regime. The yield per recruit analysis would show that they should be left alone and given the stock

~~151~~

~~biomass is still low at 29% and there are high levels of uncertainty these new recruits must be allowed to make a more substantive contribution to the fishery.~~

17. The idea of an increased allocation for recreational fishers does have merit as it essentially acknowledging that the recreational sector has played more than its part over the years in catching less than their 90t allocation. This under-catch was a result of low abundance caused by industry and has resulted in the recreational sector making a more significant contribution to the rebuild than any other sector by keeping some of their fish (allocation) in the “bank” and hence over time will allow us to manage the fishery above Bmsy.

~~18. The proof of the danger of increasing the TAC/TACC based on one strong year class recruitment can be found when the last TACC increase took place in 1997.~~

19. Prior to the increase from 160t to 200t industry were saying exactly the same as they are now and that an increase had to be granted to reduce by-catch. What happened was in the subsequent years industry was unable to reach the new TACC as that one strong year class got hammered and significantly slowed the SNA7 rebuild denying recreational fishers access to the fishery for another 10 years!

~~20. We strongly suspect it wasn't until the yield per recruit increased significantly the new tonnage was taken. This can be seen in the reported catch graph.~~

21. As well as the successful recruitment year in 2006/07 it is also highly probable that the enhancement event in 2005 and 2006 by Crop & Food Research with the release of 160,000-170,000 juveniles has also contributed to the increase in abundance.

22. In Tasman Bay 10,000 juvenile snapper were released in October 2005 and a further 120,000 juvenile snapper in March 2006 along with a further 30,000 – 40,000 juvenile snapper that were released into the Marlborough Sounds in 2006.

23. Snapper growth rates indicate that these juveniles released in 2005–6 will now be around the 45-50cm size. With a survival rate of a conservative 50% and at an average weight of 3.5kg this would possibly contribute approx. 300t to SNA 7 biomass.

24. The enhancement, which is most UNLIKELY to be repeated, has made a real contribution to any improved SNA7 abundance and this enhanced abundance has contributed significantly to the improvement of recreational catch rates in the last 6 – 8 years.

~~25. MPI managers and scientists need to recognise the enhancement event in SNA7 abundance modelling.~~

26. While we agree that snapper abundance in Tasman and Golden Bays is recovering from the commercial overfishing practiced in the past care must be taken to ensure that these gains which have taken so many years to accrue, are not lost for the short term benefit of one sector.

~~27. TASFISH submits that any rebuild happening in SNA7 has been significantly assisted through enhancement and cannot be attributed solely on improved natural recruitment.~~

~~152~~

~~28. If this rebuild is taking place either by natural means, enhancement or a combination of both it is time for the commercial sector to make their contribution towards the ongoing rebuild of SNA 7.~~

29. We have no certainty these fish will behave in the same way each year. e.g. Reports from recreational fishers indicated there were improving signs in the Golden Bay section of the fishery in the summer of 2011/12. In contrast this last summer snapper fishing in Golden Bay was rather poor with a significant drop off from the previous year. We believe it is very dangerous to base decisions to up the take based on one year class.

30. TASFISH submit that in hindsight it was a mistake for the TACC to be increased in 1997-98 from 160t to 200t as the TACC was unable to be landed for the next 6 years as the decision to increase the TACC was based on one year class that showed a pulse in the biomass. This one year class got hammered and the increased harvest effort prevented any gains that may have been made to be realised, and slowed the rebuild.

~~31. TASFISH submit we must learn from BAD management decisions of the past.~~

32. Furthermore when biomass was below the hard limit from the mid 1980’s to only a few 2 or 3 years ago there was no reduction in the TACC, it is therefore difficult to justify and hard to argue an increase in the TACC now that biomass has only just gone over the soft limit on the back of 1 year class.

33. MPI even states in the discussion paper the projected stock status is sensitive to the “estimate” of the strength of the 2007 year class. TASFISH submit that no change in the TACC should be agreed until the sampling of age composition of the commercial catch which is planned to be undertaken in 2016/17 is available. This information will assist in determining the relative strength of year classes 2007 and 2010.

34. TASFISH submits that to make any change in the TACC upwards of the current 200t has the potential to have a negative impact on the rebuild and the current biomass, and an increase of 25% to 250t is foolhardy, especially when you add the additional 50t to be allocated to the recreation as proposed in option 2.

35. MPI state in their conclusion that a modest increase in commercial catch when referring to the proposed 50t increase in the TACC would provide for increasing by-catch in target fisheries. TASFISH considers a 25% increase is far from modest and any increase should not be given to cover by-catch when clearly industry fail to spread their catch.

36. TASFISH reminds the Minister and MPI managers of the TACC over catch in 1995-6 which saw an increase of the TACC the following year. Yet while effort was not restrained the full TACC was not landed until 2003–4, and these harvest records exceeding the TACC were due to misreporting on a significant scale.

37. We now see history repeating itself where commercial over-catch is being used to justify an increase to the TACC in this proposal. TASFISH submit it would once again be a mistake for the TAC to be adjusted to allow an increase in the TACC in SNA 7 as any gains made in abundance would fail to be realised long term.

~~153~~

38. Historical behaviour of the commercial sector brings into question not only the validity of the information but the commercial sectors basis for seeking an increase in the TACC. That abundance has increased and that they do not have the ACE to cover fish being caught.

39. One of the main reasons commercial fishers do not have ACE to cover SNA7 landings is the increased targeting of snapper by some inshore trawlers in November and December when snapper school up prior to breeding in Tasman and Golden Bays.

40. In recent years industry has harvested up to the 64% of ACE for one species in the first 3 months of the fishing year to spike incomes prior to Christmas, then they complain that they do not have ACE to cover bycatch the remainder of the fishing year.

41. This increase in landings in the first 3 months of the fishing year has coincided with the revocation of regulation 11 in the Challenger commercial fishery in 2010. In summary regulation 11 read: subject to public notice, when 100 tonnes of snapper are caught in statistical area 038 between 1 October and 28 February in any fishing year, no commercial fisher will be permitted to take any fish by pair trawling, Danish seining or any snapper by surrounding net that is not a drag net within a specified area of the inshore waters of Tasman Bay. Any such restriction is effective until 30 September.

~~42. TASFISH submit that better catch spreading and harvest management was in place before regulation 11 was revoked.~~

43. If effort was more constrained – the reason for the QMS and regulation 11 – and targeted effort was better managed to ensure there was sufficient ACE to cover bycatch in the remainder of the fishing year running out of SNA 7 ACE and deeming would cease to be an issue.

44. One of the problems of the QMS and ACE is that there is no requirement to spread catch/effort on a seasonal basis. Why target spawning fish? Terrestrial farmers do not send ewes in lamb to the slaughterhouse.

45. An increase in TACC may provide short term additional utilisation opportunities for industry however TASFISH submit it would permit unrestrained commercial fishing effort that is highly likely to deteriorate long term harvest opportunities for recreational and customary fishers.

~~46. Any TACC increase will as history has proven see lost opportunities for recreational and customary fishers from reduced catch rates and reduced accessibility.~~

~~47. If abundance of this key shared stock is increasing and moving back to Bmsy, why interrupt a positive trend?~~

~~48. The recreational sector has made a significant long term contribution for more than 30 years to rebuild SNA 7 by going without snapper up until the last 7 or 9 years.~~

~~49. If the MPI Minister feels compelled to increase the TAC on the back of the scientific information referred to in the IPP then TASFISH proposes Option 3 as outlined below in Table 2.~~

~~154~~

Table 2 – TASFISH Option 3 Proposed options for the TAC, TACC and allowances for SNA7 Other sources of Customary Recreational TAC (t) TACC (t) fishing related Maori (t) (t) mortality (t) Option 1 445 200 20 200 25 (Status quo)

50. We understand that any "consultation" that takes place really only relates to accepting or rejecting one or all of the options put forward in the discussion paper. However TASFISH have decided in this instance to promote and support option 3.

51. We submit that MPI in adopting the TASFISH option 3 will address the imbalance in the fishery and recognize the contribution the recreational sector has made to the rebuild and at the same provide an allocation that supports their increasing catch.

52. Further there is a fantastic opportunity to manage this fishery far more effectively in the future if recreational and commercial sectors have an equal stake in SNA7, and by not increasing the TACC in this review we can take a more cautious approach looking to the future.

53. There are a whole range of issues and controls in this fishery that could be agreed on once the recreational sector is on an equal footing with industry in an equitable management plan to ensure both agreed outcomes and long term viability and certainty.

~~54. The advancement of a management plan for SNA7 as set out in the discussion paper is to be applauded and TASFISH would be expected to be invited to participate in this Management Group.~~

55. TASFISH sees this as opportunity to address issues such as spatial separation, benthic habitat recovery, localized bag limits, gear restrictions, catch reporting, along with other initiatives that would see public buy in for a recovering fishery where industry and amateurs had an equal share.

~~56.~~

~~HISTORY~~

57. In 1978 (2720t) and 1979 (1776t) 4496 tonnes of snapper were commercially harvested, this was the reason SNA7 declined to such low levels that denied access to recreational fishers for almost 30 years!

58. The following are excerpts from the book Hooked by David Johnson and Jenny Haworth recorded as the story of the NZ fishing industry. The excerpts were taken from the section titled scooping up the snapper and relates to the unrestrained frenzy that took place in the 1970’s and early 1980’s in Tasman Bay.

~~155~~

~~156~~

~~157~~

~~158~~

~~159~~

59. Our passion for the protection of snapper in this region cuts to the core of recreational fishers due to what went on in the past and the unrestrained commercial fishing frenzy that took place during this period decimated SNA 7 abundance.

60. What makes it even worse is the fact that the “fishermen knew that Tasman Bay Snapper could not withstand an onslaught of this intensity each year” yet this did not stop them and there was no reduction in effort to ensure the long term viability of the stock.

61. While harvests were lower from 1980 to 1989 effort was not reduced when the QMS was introduced in 1986 or even when the TACC was cut in 1989 to 160t as commercial fishers landed 134t more than the 160t TACC 1989.

~~62. Effort was finally reduced in 1991 five years after the introduction of the QMS!~~

63. SNA7 biomass was reduced to such low levels as a result of the unrestrained fishing frenzy and unrestrained effort that recreational fishers who once were able to catch a feed close in shore were unable to access a feed of snapper for almost 30 years.

64. Spatial separation is required in Tasman and Golden Bays, near inshore areas where snapper congregate to spawn should be protected from destructive bulk harvesting methods. TASFISH submit that the Marlborough Sounds and inshore areas (5 nautical miles from MLWS) of Tasman Bay and Golden Bay should exclude bottom trawling as a fishing methods to allow for habitat regeneration for spawning fish..

65. The recreational sector made a significant long term contribution to the any rebuild that is occurring with SNA 7 by going without access to snapper up until the last 3 or 4 years. TASFISH submits that if a rebuild is happening “naturally” assisted by enhancement it is time for the commercial sector to make some contribution towards the ongoing success of the rebuild of SNA 7.

66. Bottom trawling is the primary form of harvesting employed by industry throughout FMA7 and the inshore areas. This bulk harvesting method is claimed and promoted as the only economical method available to industry to harvest fish stocks.

67. Bottom trawling is the single most destructive force in the coastal marine environment. The destructive effects of bottom trawling is accepted by commercial fishers (declared deep water no trawl areas SEAFIC 4 April 2007)

68. The voluntary no trawl lines in Tasman & Golden Bays have been repeatedly ignored by some commercial fishers. There are no repercussions for the commercial fishers who breached these agreements as they are voluntary. It is apparent voluntary agreements do not work.

69. Tasman and Golden Bays and the Marlborough Sounds are recognised important breeding grounds for snapper and many other key recreational stocks and the altered benthic habitat and bottom structure severely deprives fin fish from safe habitat. The ability of juvenile finfish to seek protection from predators in this altered environment through destructive fishing practices cannot be underestimated.

~~70. Key to increased fish stock abundance is the recovery of the coastal marine area and the removal of bottom trawling will allow the benthic habitat the opportunity to recover.~~

~~160~~

~~The link between a healthy benthic habitat and the whole marine eco-system is irrefutable.~~

71. While there is no historic baseline information to measure the degree of destruction from commercial bottom trawling methods there is significant anecdotal evidence that commercial fishing interests have over several decades knowingly altered and in some cases destroyed the seabed from what was once its natural state.

~~72. The following is part of the recorded history of how coral beds in Tasman Bay were destroyed by the commercial sector. Published in the commercial publication Catch in September 1980.~~

~~161~~

73. There are also numerous scientific studies conducted in other fisheries and marine environments that conclude trawl fishing has caused the destruction and alteration of the habitat that further conclude the marine environment will not recover until the practice of bottom trawling ceases.

74. Bottom trawling and the use of other mobile fishing gear have effects on the seabed that resemble clear felling forests, a terrestrial disturbance recognised as a major threat to biological diversity and economic sustainability. Structures in marine benthic communities are generally much smaller than those in forests, but structural complexity is no less important to their bio diversity.

75. Berman and Hup (1992) demonstrated 10-65% reductions in echinoderm, polychaete, and mollusk densities after trawling. This result suggests that removal of habitat structure in relatively low-structure soft-sediment systems such as Tasman and Golden Bays and the Marlborough Sounds will significantly decrease their biodiversity, and consequently that of the wider marine ecosystem.

76. Stopping trawling significantly increases the density of large epifauna and by removing this activity we would see evidence of broad scale changes in benthic communities that can be directly related to the removal of bottom trawl fishing.

77. It is essential to recognise that the risks of trawling include many factors in addition to the direct effects on target species. By catch is perhaps the most serious general environmental impact of modern fisheries. Given Trawling gear is dragged on or near the bottom to recover benthic or near benthic species in the water column or on the soft bottom, the effects of trawling are extensive and potentially severely damaging to the ecosystem.

78. Epifaunal species are especially vulnerable, and there are overseas reports of trawlers destroying sea pens and beds of the reef building polychaete Sabellaria, the oyster Ostrea edulis, and sea grass Zostera marina.

79. In New Zealand, Bradstock and Gordon (1983) also reported the loss of large beds of bryozoans as a result of trawling. In each of the above cases the habitats that were destroyed by trawling probably represent very important nursery areas for many species, often including some of the target species of fisheries.

80. Extensive areas of benthic habitat in the Tasman Coastal Marine Area have been lost or their physical integrity compromised as a result of trawl fishing. Mobile fishing gears are a major cause for concern because of the size of the affected fishing grounds, the associated modification of the substrate, disturbance of benthic communities, and removal of non-target species.

81. Random research surveys may underestimate the actual environmental impact of the commercial bottom fishing activities. Another problem is that research surveys are often much more reduced in time and space than the actual fishing effort.

82. They report long lists of benthic species destroyed, and that most good areas are trawled over many times a year even 25% mortality is extremely serious for long lived species that recruit episodically and live in areas exposed to trawling several times a year.

~~162~~

83. In addition to direct impacts, there are many indirect impacts caused by trawling resulting from increased turbidity likely to reduce or eliminate sea grass habitats. In most cases these are important habitats that become dominated by small deposit feeding polychaetes. Such shifts have serious implications because deposit-feeding communities may resist recovery of suspension feeding species. Epifauna play key roles in influencing the structure and stability of benthic communities.

84. Trawl fishing exerts a profound effect on almost all components of associated communities and ecosystems. The most sensitive components are rare habitats that serve as nurseries and the species with low reproductive rates. It is accepted that Tasman and Golden Bays and the Marlborough Sounds areas are nursery grounds for many species including our favoured Snapper. Blue Cod were even once abundant in Tasman and Golden Bays but they now have nowhere to hide from predators.

85. Fisheries managers attempt to address the sustainability of fish-stocks through the Quota Management System a system that fails to minimise the direct and indirect impacts of fishing on other components of the ecosystem. A number of recent international fisheries agreements have specifically identified the need to provide for habitat protection and restoration to ensure long-term sustainability of fisheries.

86. TASFISH submits that if we are to improve habitat and ultimately improve fish stock abundance that bottom trawling must be removed from key breeding areas such as Golden and Tasman Bays and the Marlborough Sounds.

87. TASFISH cannot support any increases in TACC’s until inter sector spatial separation is achieved through the removal of bottom impacting fishing methods and the creation of no trawl areas 3 miles from mean low water springs (MLWS).

88. As scientific hypotheses are never proven, only disproven, conservative management is very difficult because exploiters can always point out uncertainties about the casual relationships between exploitation and environmental degradation. TASFISH submit that the burden of proof lies with the exploiter.

~~Local Area Management~~

~~89. FMA7 is a complex and varied fishery which covers the West Coast of the South Island, Tasman and Golden Bays, the Marlborough Sounds and the upper East Coast of the South Island.~~

90. The recreational sector fish under the amateur regulations for FMA7 as well as the two sub area regulations; those for the Challenger East Area and those for the Marlborough Sounds Area. These sub areas of FMA7 have additional stricter regulations that better reflect the varying geographical nature and varying abundance of stocks within FMA7.

~~91. While there are various gear restrictions on the commercial sector the harvest of the TACC can be achieved from anywhere within FMA7.~~

~~92. In the case of snapper it is known that in some areas of FMA 7 recreational fishers have experienced increased catches, there are however a number of other popular areas, in~~

~~163~~

particular adjacent to intensively commercial bottom trawled areas, where no increase has been detected and low catches remain the norm (e.g. the western shores of Tasman Bay). Any increase in the TAC/TACC’s will only allow increased commercial effort which will continue to deny access to the fishery in these areas.

~~93. I t is obvious that spreading commercial effort and catch within FMA7 could achieve increased TACC while also allowing better access to these fisheries for the recreational sector.~~

94. It is our submission that finer scale management on a more local basis of commercial effort and their catch entitlements within FMA7 needs to be implemented to allow for increased utilisation and thereby creating greater equity and higher value.

~~95. It is a nonsense that tighter restrictions apply to only one sector whose overall catch allocation and catch is a fraction as that provided for the commercial sector.~~

96. The TACC should be broken down to be management by statistical reporting areas that better reflect the varying geographical nature and varying abundance levels within FMA7 and to avoid localised depletion and provide for all sectors equally.

~~Stock Management Levels~~

97. There are several references in the Fisheries Act 1996 to levels at which stocks must be maintained. The level most often quoted is Bmsy and pursuit of MSY has been at the forefront of fisheries manager’s minds for many years. MSY as an outcome has led to this management objective being referred to as a “knife edge”, and given the uncertainty of available information on many stocks, creating real danger of stock collapse if MSY is overestimated.

98. The recent Supreme Court decision on the Kahawai case states the Minister can maintain a biomass in any given fishery at above BMSY if he/she decides to. This is especially important in many of our high value shared inshore stocks, including those we are submitting on here, where abundance is the key driver for non-commercial success.

99. The Court also directed that the Minister must provide an allowance that is “reasonable” for non-commercial interests and that the entire TAC, once set, must be allocated. Therefore it is unacceptable the TAC be reviewed without including any provision in the IPP for a change in the allowance for non-commercial interests.

~~100. It appears under this IPP that if the TAC is reviewed upwards and MSY is the management outcome, the only possible beneficiaries are ITQ holders.~~

101. Non-commercial fishers have not endured over 30 years of pain from low catch rates caused by commercial excesses to accept a repeat performance. These stocks must be managed at levels significantly above Bmsy if there is to be any chance of access equity.

~~164~~

102. Given the pivotal importance of these inshore stocks to non-commercial interests it is crucial they continue to be moved to a level above Bmsy. We submit the Minister would be acting entirely within his rights by allowing the standing stock biomass to continue to increase and maintain the TAC at its present level.

103. Recent research coordinated by Worm and Hillborn and reported in the journal “Science” published in late July 2009, points to strong indicators on an international level that managing fisheries at biomass levels recognised as significantly above those historically used to calculate MSY provides win win situations.

104. They also found that using an ecosystem based approach and calculating yields on a multi species basis rather than the accepted single species system, lead to higher levels of productivity and certainty of sustainable long term yields.

105. TASFISH submits that we have an opportunity to break out from the cycle of boom and bust and use humanities increasing understanding of the complexities of the marine environment to improve our fisheries productivity. The benefits of this can then be shared by all sectors of society, not just a handful of quota owners.

~~Deemed Values for Fish Stocks~~

106. The minister is required to set deemed value rates that will provide incentive for every commercial fisher to acquire and hold sufficient ACE that is not less than the total catch of that stock taken by the commercial fisher.

107. TASFISH submits that even when the deemed value rate provides this incentive TACC’s continue to be exceeded. Furthermore the fish receiver or processor, who in most cases is the quota owner, processes the catch, adds value to it and still makes a profit from it.

~~108. TASFISH submits that any over catch of ACE or the TACC should be taken of the following years TACC and ACE.~~

~~109. This will ensure the quota holder retains more control over the commercial fisher in adhering to catching only what the commercial fisher has ACE for.~~

110. Any over catch impacts negatively on stock abundance and denies the recreational sector access to their share of the TAC. TASFISH submit that by reducing the following years TACC and ACE when commercial fishers catch more than they are entitled to should be implemented immediately as a sustainability measure.

111. TASFISH also submits that MPI should develop the ability to monitor catch landings in real time to enable catch landing forecasts. These accurate forecasts will enable fisheries managers to close fisheries in total before TACC’s are exceeded and or ensure commercial fishers which hold no ACE are also forced to cease fishing.

~~112. TASFISH submits if these measures were introduced then deemed value payments will be less significant and deeming will cease to be a way of just accessing more ACE.~~

~~165~~

~~113. The policy of having a deemed value rate of somewhere between the ACE and the Port price does not work, there are many instances where over-catch continues regardless.~~

114. Any level of over catch cannot be sustained and denies access to the fishery for other sectors. TASFISH submits that commercial fishers must not only be penalised financially by way of deemed value but MPI must also reduce TACC and ACE in following year when TACCs are over caught.

~~115. It unacceptable and defies logic to allow commercial fishers to carry forward 10 % of TACC if uncaught one year yet not deduct the TACC the following year when a TACC has been exceeded.~~

~~116. To further ensure ACE is not exceeded TASFISH submit that all deemed values should be set at a minimum of 3 times the port price.~~

~~Martyn Barlow~~

~~166~~

~~167 168 169 170 171 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: Waikawa Fishing Co Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 2:36 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Waikawa Fishing Co Ltd - Review of Management Controls for Arrow Squid Jigging Fishery (SQU1J)~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Hi there,~~

~~Firstly let me apologize for being a day late with our submission. Due to family circumstances yesterday this submission was over looked, but we hope that you will accept it today.~~

~~Our Family Company ,Waikawa Fishing Company Limited would like to take Option 1 of this Review, the reasons for this are below:~~

1) The Foreign Squid Fishery Vessels have now left New Zealand waters which now gives an opportunity for the Domestic fleet to develop this Fishery. Our Company has bought Quota and Squid gear to do just this. They left because of new rules and regulations for their Vessels, not because the Squid weren’t there.

~~2) If current Quota Holders do not want to catch the ACE or pay the levies, they do have the option of selling to those that do or shelving with the Government.~~

3) We feel that there should be something done about the levies and not to cut the Quota. We see that the problem seems to be Levies ,and the paying for those Levies, rather than a sustainability issue.

~~4) Is there any other options for those that don’t want a cut, and are prepared to try and develop the Industry and pay the levies?~~

~~5) Our Company feels it should not be penalised because the Quota hasn’t been caught, as the reason is not sustainability issue.~~

~~6) If the Quota is cut by 80‐90%, we will have trouble trying to lease or buy Quota, which stops us trying to develop the Fisheries .~~

Could you please acknowledge that you received this email, I have been trying to contact someone in MPI and Fishserve to help me, but have been pasted back and forth as no one knew about this Submission,only about the Snapper one.

~~Regards Chris Connor For Waikawa Fishing Co Ltd~~

~~1 172 Preetha Oommen (Preetha)~~

~~From: waynes 9(2) ~~Sent: Sunday,(a) 10 July 2016 12:48 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Fwd: Review of Management Controls for the Scampi 2 Fishery (SCI2 )~~~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~This submission is supported by~~

~~LegaSea HB~~

~~Hawkes Bay Sports Fishing Club~~

~~Pania Surfcasting Club~~

~~NZ Angling and Casting Assoc~~

~~Gisborne - Tatapouri Sports Fishing Club~~

~~This submission opposes any increase to the T.A.C or T.A.C.C of SCI 2.~~

~~We are astonished that your science tells you that there are actually more scampi now than there was with a virgin biomass.~~

~~You will recall that the Guardians of Hawks Bay Fisheries submitted on, and opposed the same I.P.P.back in 2013.~~

Despite assurances from MPI to " monitor and manage" the risk associated with this increase in by catch,it's still way up there at over 4 tonne of by catch per tonne of scampi.( To date we have seen no reports of any "managing"the bycatch catch and very little monitoring)

~~That's 4,263kg of bycatch per 1000kg of target species.~~

~~At the current T.A.C.C.thats 596,820kg of bycatch per year.~~

~~Has this excessive bycatch anything to do with the collapse of the Hoki fishery off our coast?~~

~~A quote from the 2013 submission.~~

~~" Current models estimate the biomass for the scampi fishery to be above the 40% default management target of unfished biomass.The scampi are a burrowing~~

1 173 crustacean and the bethic impact of the bottom trawling combined with the current levels of fish mortality indicate that the ministry requires information on the alternatives available to successfully catch the allowances for SCI . The sustainability principles of the 1996 Fisheries Act demand a cautious approach be applied to ensure the sustainability of the New Zealand fishery for future generations.

As you are well, LegaSea HB is currently in discussion with MPI and the commercial sector over our dissatisfaction on how the fishery is being managed and the waistfull harvesting practices that are still being used.

~~As the Ministry with the " Guardians "role of the fishery we find it very disturbing that you are actively promoting an increase in discards to the tune of 46,893kg (option 2) 179,064kg (option 3).~~

~~What happened to the cautious approach?~~

~~These excessive bycatch levels are unacceptable and we urge the Minister to encourage the scampi fishermen to develop alternative methods that are more target species orientated.~~

~~I quote from Dave Turner,Director, Fisheries Management, in July issue of the NZ Fishing News.~~

~~"Any discarding is illegal and disappointing, because it means unnecessary waste . Every dumped fish could have been better used by someone else or left in the ocean to grow and multiply "~~

~~We also request that the Minister put a hold on any TACC or TAC increases whilst the current negotiations are ongoing.~~

~~Wayne Bicknell for LegaSea HB~~

~~2 174~~

~~______~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management 13 July 2016 Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6011 Email: [email protected]~~

~~Submission on the Review of Management Controls and Deemed Value Rates for Selected Stocks for 1 October 2016~~

~~1. Thank you for this opportunity to submit on the Ministry for Primary Industry Review of Sustainability Controls and Deemed Value Rates for Selected Inshore Finfish Stocks.~~

2. Southern Inshore Fisheries (Southern Inshore) represents quota owners for 104 fishstocks throughout the South Island and Taranaki regions (fisheries management areas 3,5,7 & 8) and they are also members of Fisheries Inshore New Zealand (FINZ).

3. This submission is made in respect of the inshore finfish stocks represented under the constitution of Southern Inshore Finfish Mgmt. Co.Ltd and include management measures proposed for BNS3, JDO7, SNA7, RBY3.

4. We remain disappointed that a number of other important stocks that we represent have not been reviewed and supposedly because of MPI resourcing problems? These include ELE3, ELE5, ELE7, LEA3, GUR3, GUR7, KIN3, KIN7 and SPO7. All of the preliminary work for these stocks had been completed by SIF and presented in an appropriate format. The stocks are being over-caught and in all instances show a degree of increasing abundance from catch trends which are supported by trawl survey indices and other work.

5. We understand the MPI Inshore fisheries team is now at full strength and must become capable of reviewing a larger range of stocks if New Zealand is to realise the Business Growth Agenda of doubling exports. No opportunity to increase the sustainable catch should be lost through a lack of MPI resources. MPI needs to increase its efforts to improve its performance and productivity in that respect, including moves towards management procedures and more active management of stocks. We are regularly told that because a stock was reviewed last year it has to wait another year or more. “Set and forget” is not the means to maximise sustainable value. The management procedure approach would allow for regular review (even

175 annually) of TACC levels and would not discriminate against a stock if reviewed the previous year. MPI needs to commit to a management framework that includes management procedures and processes to improve the management of all stocks. The current framework is not delivering.

6. In the case of the ELE and GUR fisheries where the abundance is high, fishers are being forced to adapt their fishing patterns to avoid the catch of ELE and GUR. MPI should enable a discretionary TACC increase whilst ensuring ongoing monitoring through management procedures, CPUE updates and current trawl surveys and time series. Fishers should not have to avoid catching these species or incurring deemed value penalties because of an inability by MPI to put resources towards management and review processes.

7. We note that while MPI professes to be unable to process TACC reviews, it continues to unnecessarily tinker with the deemed value regimes. Using one-off instances of catch exceeding TACC’s to review the interim deemed value rates to the new standard of 90% of the annual rate when the existing deemed value regime is operating effectively and efficiently to achieve catch balancing seems unnecessary and unproductive. We cannot support the allocation of resources to this type of tinkering when there are more significant activities to undertake.

8. Further, whilst not included in this review process we note that as of 11 July the agreed in-season increase to the FLA3 TACC is still yet to be gazetted. This is 4 months on from the presentation to the MPI working group and 3 months before the end of the fishing year in which it is supposed to apply. Such processes need to be amended and improved for timely and appropriate decision-making to allow fishers to access the additional ACE before the end of the year. The technical basis of the model has already been peer reviewed and any in-season increase need only be automatic rather than go through the convoluted sign-off by Minister and Cabinet before being gazetted. Even if the Ministerial approval is required, there is no credible or justifiable reason why the approval should be subject to such delays and, in doing so, deny fishers the opportunity to capitalise on the abundance improvement.

9. It appears the Ministry is moving to re-instate a more focussed regional approach in respect of the management of stocks. SIF strongly support the concept of regional management and look forward to improving the relationships between MPI and others and look forward to working within such a model. The centralisation of fisheries management resources within MPI has led to a loss of local knowledge and expertise and working relationships that have detrimentally affected the management of stocks have been lost.

~~FISHSTOCKS PROPOSED FOR REVIEW~~

~~Review of Snapper (SNA7) TACC~~

10. We definitely agree that the TACC for SNA7 has to be increased to 250 tonnes in the first instance, and propose a further review in 2017 and 2018 based on the exponential increase in the abundance in this fishery and the potential to provide

176 stepwise precautionary increases to the TACC. This fishery has a biomass (confirmed by a stock assessment) which can support further increases within current rebuilding limits, and therefore should not constrain the setting of the TACC at higher levels in these subsequent years. Therefore, first and foremost, Southern Inshore wants to register its support for the proposed increase in the TAC and increase in TACC proposed under ‘Option 2’ of the MPI Discussion Paper 2016/18.

11. Southern Inshore have been instrumental in ensuring the ongoing monitoring and assessment of SNA7 since 2003 through the investment in industry-funded and cost recovered research. Ongoing research from 2018 will also provide monitoring for further assessment of the TACC in this fishery.

12. Since 2009, the SNA7 fishery has changed significantly. The presence of two large recruited year classes in 2007 and 2010 have added further strength to the rapidly increasing biomass of the fishery.

13. Whilst environmental factors such as water temperature and food are not consistently monitored, there is some evidence that these too are changing and enhancing the snapper and other fisheries throughout the South Island. The increased presence of snapper along the entire West Coast of the South Island and in both Golden and Tasman Bays for notably longer periods, and may be indicative of these changes. Whilst snapper in the past has migrated out of the bays they now appear present in reasonable numbers throughout the year and require fishers to adapt their behaviour to avoid them whilst trying to maintain catch of other target and mixed species fisheries throughout these areas. Avoidance of snapper will be showing changes in the catch effort indices for our other stocks, prompting unnecessary reviews of those stocks.

14. The recreational fishery is experiencing outstanding catches. High abundance and increased catch of various size classes in this fishery through the year are becoming more and more evident. However, it is essential that we encourage the accumulation of more accurate information in respect of the catch profile for recreational fishers to input into the assessment data already recorded by the commercial sector and catch at age projects. With the recreational catch now matching the commercial catch, it is important to understand the impact of recreational selectivity and fishing behaviour on the snapper stocks.

~~SNA7 Management Settings~~

15. The Harvest Strategy Standard (HSS) implies a default target biomass level relative to the unexploited spawning (mature) biomass of female fish (SB0) of 40% SB0. We would argue that this limit is conservative and consideration should be given to assessing the stock against a more pragmatic interim target level of 35% SB0 given the age at maturity and overall age in the SNA population especially when comparing it to bluenose which is longer lived and enters the fishery at an older age but is considered against 35%B0.

177 16. Comparatively, the proposed FINZ Management Procedure (MP) for bluenose adopts an interim target level of 35%B0. The maximum age of bluenose is predicted at 76 years whereas the presence of 30+year old snapper is not readily evident in SNA7. The age at maturity also varies in comparison.

17. The SNA7 fishery is currently expected to be at 29% B0 and expected to be at 35% B0 by 2018/19. The target biomass of 40% B0 is estimated to support annual catches of 600-800tonnes. An interim target of 35%B0 would still support the upper range of the annual catch estimate and above the interim target level.

18. The HSS implies a default target biomass level of 40% SB0 for stocks where SBMSY has not been fully evaluated but given that the assessment type for SNA7 is now a Level 1 – Full Quantitative Stock Assessment a reasonable degree of uncertainty has been reduced and could allow it to be assessed at a more adaptive interim target level of 35% SB0. These are only reference target levels and does not imply that the default target has to be reached, or exceeded, before a review of the TACC can be made. The 2013 decision of SNA1 provides a strong example of the application of that process. We need to review the HSS settings for SNA7 consistent with the status and increased knowledge within this fishery rather than just using the default HSS settings.

19. Figure 1 shows the biomass trajectory is clearly exponential for SNA7 and small changes to the TACC should not impact that trend greatly. On this basis the decision to review the TACC to 250 tonnes is appropriate but is only a conservative increase given the rebuilding performance in this fishery. The stock needs to be monitored and, as said above, further TACC increases in subsequent years need to be provided to provide access to the increasing abundance that will be within the limits of the target biomass.

Figure 1. Spawning biomass relative to the default target spawning biomass reference point from the base assessment model. The solid line represents the median of the McMC samples and the shaded area represents

~~178 the 95% confidence interval. The red time block represents the 4-year forecast (projection) period. The reference limits are noted by the legend and coloured dashed lines.~~

~~SNA7 Ongoing Research~~

20. To date Southern Inshore have invested significant shareholder money towards industry funded SNA7 research to ensure that there was ongoing monitoring and increased knowledge of the status of the SNA7 fishery. What was being experienced on the water by fishers over the last 10 years has now been confirmed by the stock assessment and ageing research.

21. We agree that the research services for 2016/17 needs to include the ageing analyses for the 2010 year class to be funded through cost recovery so that a significant proportion is paid by the Crown. We understand that MPI have provided a 50:50 share of costs for this work, but it should apply for future work if the TAC is not adjusted by the Minister. If this is to be deemed a shared fishery then costs need to also be shared rather than the current cost recovery rule that is biased towards commercial paying for 66% based on the TAC/TACC ratio.

~~SNA7 Recreational Allowance and Setting Methodology~~

22. We agree that the recreational allocation needs to reflect to some extent their increased catch but do not agree with the arbitrary setting of 50/50 for a shared fishery definition that is precedent setting for other fisheries where varying degrees of recreational access and catch are estimated.

23. Some instances may apply that the allocation for commercial should be in excess of the recreational given the access dynamics and economic importance to these fisheries. Just because both sectors access the same fishery does not automatically deem it to be a shared fishery, or that the allowances be set proportionally on a 50/50 basis.

24. Other instances may apply where the recreational catch estimate is not clearly estimated and may have to be set on a precautionary level whereas commercial estimates are well reported and a known proportion of the potential biomass.

25. We do not accept the assertion that the recreational sector needs to be compensated for any loss of “value” when the fishery was depleted. The evidence indicates that the recreational sector has increased its catch at a rate far greater than the increase in biomass. There has been no loss of value for that sector. By contrast the commercial sector has had its value capped through the lower TACC during the rebuild and in relative terms has been more detrimentally impacted than the recreational sector.

26. We note the requirement for the Minister to establish measures to manage the recreational catch to the allocation. The growth in recreational catch evidences that the bag limit for the recreational sector does not cap the catch extraction level from the biomass of a fishery. This can have a direct impact on the commercial sector and access to the TACC level and any other potential access to that biomass.

27. Commercial fisheries are well reported, but the catch estimates for the recreational sector from varying survey methods and ad hoc frequency of such surveys over the years is causing concern. We regularly update our commercial fisheries catch effort or assessments whereas the period between recreational surveys can be extensive and decrease the accuracy of the stock assessment projections for catch. This uncertainty provides MPI the opportunity not to

179 review some stocks where access to additional biomass could be made by the commercial sector. Such uncertainty should not preclude MPI from reviewing the TACC settings, but then maintain precautionary levels for other sectors. There are no grounds to adopt a prescriptive proportionality ratio of 50/50 for any shared fishery. The sector allocations are discretionary and the Minister needs to take into account the social, cultural and economic well-being of all the sectors. Default, prescriptive or future allocations cannot be predetermined. Decisions need to be based on science not on political positioning.

28. While Southern Inshore strongly supports Option 2 over Option 1 in terms of the proposals discussed by MPI in its Discussion Paper, we believe MPI must improve the way that the recreational fishery is managed. We have included an Appendix at the end of this submission which deals with this issue in more detail.

~~Review of John Dory (JDO7) TACC~~

~~29. We support OPTION 3. JDO7 abundance has increased and an increase to a 190 tonne TACC should be applied.~~

30. JDO is a bycatch of other target and mixed trawl species and the increase in catch is comparative to the increasing abundance of other inshore species within the West Coast of the South Island and in Tasman and Golden Bays fisheries complexes.

31. MPI need to begin reviewing the bycatch and target species complexes together so that the TACC reviews are complimentary of what is happening in these complexes. That is, JDO7 is taken as a bycatch with GUR7 and therefore this stock should have also been reviewed for an increase in the TACC. JDO7 should not become a limiting bycatch to the target fishery.

~~Review of Bluenose (BNS) TACC~~

32. SIF have not addressed the management of BNS stocks for several years supporting the earlier proposition that these would be managed under the FINZ banner although provide some support to FINZ on the basis that much of the Area 3, 7, and 8 stocks are held by our shareholders. At recent meetings of fishers and quota owners (in Auckland and Napier) a management option was proposed (Option 1a) that seeks to align the any proposed reduction to the TACC to recent research and projections within the fishery. We support this proposal and note that FINZ will be providing a submission to this effect with more detailed information.

33. In the absence of MPI considering this option we advise that any alternative, drawn from the IPP can only be to support Option 1. That would apply no changes to the combined TACC for BNS, and more especially no reduction to the individual TACC’s for BNS3, 7, 8 which we represent. The remaining options 2&3 will have a detrimental impact on fishers and quota owners and are not justified on the basis of the recent assessment.

~~34. We do not accept the current rationale that all BNS stocks come under the one national stock relationship nor that any adjustments to the TACCs should be prorated across all stocks.~~

35. FINZ have developed a management procedure approach for the BNS fishery through to 2018/19 and beyond. The MP provides the management approach and review process for the rebuild of the fishery and monitoring requirements.

180 36. The projected rebuild in this fishery is based on a long-term target range of 15-20 years. We have seen the cessation of the decline in this fishery as well as a reasonable rebuild across all stocks within the last 5 years. Anecdotal information from fishers also mirrors that seen from the science assessment.

37. We see no reason for MPI to ignore the current assessment and management procedure approach and revert to a 2011 decision by the Minister for arbitrary annual TACC reductions on the basis of a default HSS target reference limit. The positive projections in this fishery do not necessitate such a harsh approach.

38. A pragmatic approach would be for MPI, given none of these fisheries are declining at the previous rate, is to work with FINZ to further develop the MP approach (and selection of parameters to input into the model) which may or may not include ageing and then continued adoption of the MP beyond 2018/19 to provide for a rebuild in these fisheries. That approach was shown in 2013 when the Minister decided not to initiate the 3rd phase cut to the TACC based on new information. We submit that level of information is only being improved upon by the constant monitoring within these fisheries.

~~Review of Rubyfish (RBY3) TACC~~

39. Rubyfish are taken as part of the inshore mixed species complex as well as the middle-depth target species for alfonsino and hoki. RBY3 is also included under the Southern Inshore Constitutional list of stocks.

40. We support OPTION 3 which recognises the need for a realistic TACC increase from 3 to 30 tonnes and given the continued over-catch situation, certainly appears appropriate. We do not believe that an increase at this level is likely to put this fishery at risk. This stock has had an arbitrary setting of 3 tonnes since its introduction into the QMS in 1998 and desperately requires addressing.

41. Not allowing a reasonable increase in the TACC, as proposed under OPTION 2, would still make RBY3 a limiting bycatch species to any known target species. Species such as RBY3 should not inhibit or restrict target stocks when they have not been set appropriately. This stock can still be monitored under the mixed species complex.

~~DEEMED VALUE REVIEW~~

42. There needs to be more of a commitment from MPI to conduct a “full” review of deemed values in conjunction with appropriate TACC level setting for all stocks. Deemed values should be a last resort and incurred when all other options are unavailable. In a number of fishstocks the deemed value levels are causing perverse outcomes, increasing ACE prices and unnecessary discarding when utilisation should be maximised according to stock status.

43. Reviewing deemed values when stocks are either only being overcaught by a small percentage, or having TACC levels adjusted to meet the overcatch in single or mixed species fisheries is simply wrong. Incentives need to be in place to optimise fisheries but deter inappropriate actions. This can only be achieved if the TACC is set appropriately and deemed values are set at a level that provide the satisfactory management processes.

181 44. We note the reference to the use of the “MPI’s Deemed Value Guidelines” and the rationale, and triggers and criteria for review for stocks. We cannot find any reference to these guidelines being consulted externally from MPI. Imposing a set of guidelines without consultation with industry is inappropriate. This gives further cause to the necessity for a full review of the deemed value process and framework.

45. In addition, Seafood New Zealand has made extensive submissions on behalf of industry with recommendations on how to improve the deemed value regime, notwithstanding the nine recommendations the Crown-Industry Joint Working Group made to the Minister of Fisheries as far back as 2005. And yet still no formal review of the regime.

~~Need for Regional Deemed Value Setting~~

46. Southern Inshore (and previously as Challenger Finfish Mgmt. Co.Ltd) has for a number of years advocated that deemed values should be set on a regional basis that reflects the port price index within the region, rather than an average index which can be majorly influenced by higher market values from the North Island and beyond.

47. In the absence of incorrectly set TACC’s a more meaningful deemed value system is essential. We are doing the fishers of NZ a major disservice by not treating this matter with more seriousness. We should be providing a system that encourages the landing and recording of all fish and we should be using this information to guide us in making better management decisions. To do otherwise is to just ignore Governments continued claims regarding economic opportunity.

48. We again would like to propose to work with MPI to review the deemed value regime and include the development of a schedule of regional deemed values. It needs to recognise that Industry is not looking for ‘something for nothing’ here. We want to participate in a very important process that sees Industry and MPI develop a far more workable environment.

49. Also within this approach, is the recognition that the differential deemed value regime that is meant to promote obtaining ACE, is problematic when companies within this Industry choose not to release it. Philosophically, no deemed value should be paid on a stock where the TACC has not been caught. All of these matters need to be discussed. We certainly welcome the opportunity.

~~Review of Deemed Value for Blue cod – BCO3~~

50. We do not agree that a 3% overcatch in 2014/15 should trigger a review of the interim deemed value for BCO3, nor that the ratio of DV to QV at 0.004 is significant to trigger use of valuable MPI resources that could have otherwise been used to review other TACC settings.

51. Southern Inshore signalled the increasing catch in the trawl bycatch of BCO3 in 2014/15 and provided MPI with an update to the CPUE. Fishers had noticed an increase in their catch ratios and requested that the TACC be reviewed. MPI did not proceed with a review of the TACC but now seek to penalise fishers from the overcatch within a fishery where the abundance may be increasing.

~~52. Whilst BCO3 is mainly a target cod pot and line fishery there is increased prevalence of it being caught as bycatch to trawling in these inshore areas. As BCO3 is proportionally caught~~

182 as bycatch, it should not trigger an increase in the deemed value (interim or annual) and especially on the basis of only being 3% overcaught. Principle 7 of the deemed value guidelines provides for: the interim deemed value rate must generally be set at 90% of the annual deemed value rate. The reference here is ‘generally’ and whilst they are included in a set of ‘guidelines’ are not binding and can be used at discretion.

~~53. We propose that the current interim deemed value rate remain at $2.50 but reiterate that we are better served addressing this under a regional DV setting process.~~

~~Review of Deemed Value for Rubyfish – RBY3~~

54. We do not agree to an increase in the deemed value for RBY3 simply on the basis that the TACC is proposed for review. The TACC review is long overdue and is merely resetting the QMS introduction in 1998 at a level of 3 tonnes to a more realistic TACC level of 30 tonnes. All low knowledge stocks that currently exceed initial allocations should be adjusted accordingly.

55. It is an unavoidable bycatch to the main target fisheries for alfonsino and hoki and therefore the deemed value should not be increased until further catch estimates and trends are established. Increasing the TACC to align with the current presumed abundance in this fishery should not trigger a review of the deemed value at this stage.

~~56. We propose that the current and annual deemed value rates remain at the current levels and again state that this should be addressed under a regional DV setting process.~~

~~NEED FOR ONGOING REVIEW OF OTHER STOCKS~~

57. Whilst we welcomed the review for the TACC for SNA7, JDO7 (and RBY3), these are only two main stocks from a list of a number of important stocks proposed by Southern Inshore. The fisheries for ELE3, ELE5, ELE7, GUR3, GUR7, KIN3, KIN7 and SPO7 are all important stocks that are proven to have increased in abundance and in the case of SPO7 is rebuilding. All have positive biomass trends and could have easily and confidently been reviewed for TACC increases this year.

58. In particular, we have raised concern with the lack of any credible TACC review for ELE3 when this fishery is clearly causing concern to fishers and their need for continued avoidance of elephantfish in a number of areas has got to change. Such avoidance is causing bias in the assessment of the CPUE and we believe it is being misinterpreted as a decline in the fishery. It is important that the MPI managers that are tasked with reviewing these fisheries are also present at the discussions with industry so that such avoidance is understood and addressed as they are not given parameters in the assessments.

59. Southern Inshore proposed a precautionary increase of 150 tonnes to the TACC taking it from 1000 tonnes to 1150tonnes. A supporting proposal was sent to MPI and included the following Figure 2 which shows the trend in the CELR CPUE indices from the ELE3 stock assessment. The overall trend in the fishery is increasing but MPI are only concentrating on one small recent proportion of the history in this fishery which shows from 2009 a flat trend in CPUE.

~~183~~

~~Figure 2. Updated CELR CPUE indices from the ELE3 Stock Assessment presentation to the Southern Inshore Working Group 25 February 2016.~~

60. We request that MPI discuss and consider all anecdotal information with industry as it is a clear example in ELE3 that a distant manager not present at the working group meetings has looked at a trend in a CPUE graph and not taken into account the other factors such as deemed values, species avoidance, lack of ACE and other factors that are not input parameters into the assessment. Any move by MPI to operate with greater regional accountability for fisheries managers on an ongoing basis could only benefit the decision- making process for stock reviews.

61. Stocks that were reviewed last year and TACCs increased (GUR3, GUR7, SPO7 and STA7) could have been included for further review in 2016 on the basis of current trends in the fisheries from trawl survey and CPUE assessments.

62. The continued precautionary increases in these fisheries is what the management procedure approach essentially adopts using management triggers based on agreed indices. To suggest that because a stock was reviewed in the previous year so therefore should not be done again goes against such a monitoring and management approach and does not provide any robust decision-making opportunity.

63. The trawl surveys are conducted every two years and provide a high degree of relative abundance for the majority of the Southern Inshore fishstocks. We believe that the investment in these surveys (equating to approx. $1M/year) needs to be better aligned into a fisheries management framework with regular assessments for evaluation of TACC setting.

64. We are of the opinion that the trawl survey needs to be used pro-actively to manage fisheries on emerging trends rather than just being used retrospectively to review stocks. The current process requires the results of at least two surveys (being 4yrs) to confirm increase abundance before a TACC review is proposed. With the short life span of some inshore species that delay results in the fishers being unable to access opportunities until the fishery may have flattened or worse still, be in decline. The sustainability of our fisheries is not so fragile that a pro-active approach to TAC reviews that results in inappropriate TACC setting will compromise the fishery. The key is to maintain the monitoring and manage the fishery actively rather than the passive, evidential approach currently in place.

~~184~~

65. As an example, in 2012 Southern Inshore were able to work directly with MPI science and managers to review the trends from the CPUE and trawl survey for the GUR7 fishstock and agree that the year classes projected to enter the fishery necessitated an increase in the TACC to allow for additional access to fishers and to avoid unnecessary deemed values.

66. Further, we propose the need for fishery complexes to be taken into account rather than just reviewing single stock TACC increases. We have a number of mixed species fisheries and all stocks within that fishery need to be reviewed collectively.

67. Finally, a number of fishstocks have not had an adjustment to their TACC since introduction to the QMS. We propose that a suite of fishstocks be proposed under a general framework for TACC adjustment for low knowledge fishstocks. Assessing a number of fishstocks under the same guidelines would provide for cost effective use of resources and overall expenditure rather than the ad hoc selection of, in the case of Southern Inshore, RBY3 being just the one stock reviewed under this provision.

~~SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS~~

~~68. The following summarises the Southern Inshore position on the proposals for review of management controls and deemed value rates for selected stocks:~~

~~TACC REVIEW~~

~~Snapper – SNA7 Agree with OPTION 2 Agree to the increase in the TAC from 306 tonnes to 545 tonnes Agree to the increase in the TACC from 200 tonnes to 250 tonnes (at a minimum)~~

~~John Dory - JDO7 Agree to OPTION 3 Agree to the increase in the TAC from 161 tonnes to 206 tonnes Agree to the increase in the TACC from 150 tonnes to 190 tonnes~~

~~Bluenose – BNS3 Agree to OPTION 1a as proposed by FINZ (refer to FINZ submission) Agree to OPTION 1 if OPTION 1a is rejected~~

~~Rubyfish – RBY3 Agree to OPTION 3 Agree to the increase in the TAC from 3 tonnes to 32 tonnes Agree to the increase in the TACC from 3 tonnes to 30 tonnes~~

~~DEEMED VALUE REVIEW~~

~~185 Proposal to review the MPI Deemed Value regime and the need for the introduction of Regional Deemed Values~~

~~Blue cod - BCO3 Disagree and reject the need for an increase in the interim deemed value rate~~

~~Rubyfish - RBY3 Disagree and reject the need for an increase in the interim and annual deemed value rates~~

~~Contact: Carol Scott~~

~~186 Appendix~~

~~Allocation and Management of Recreational Catch for SNA7 Fishery~~

1. Southern Inshore understands that the Discussion Paper 2016/18 on the Review of Management Controls for the Snapper 7 Fishery presents two options for future management of the SNA7 fishery and requests submitters’ views on which option is preferred. This is what Southern Inshore’s main submission has therefore focused on. However, Southern Inshore would also like to register its continuing concerns and emphasises the need for proper management and control of the recreational catch, as set out in this Appendix.

2. In summary, the present circumstances relating to SNA7 the rationale offered in the Discussion Paper for the proposed reallocation of TAC between commercial and non- commercial interests from 70/30 to 50/50 is extremely light on analysis. This adjustment in allocation proportions has not been sufficiently justified and devalues the quota entitlements commercial fishers currently have in the context of the QMS as a whole. It seems the rationale is essentially that recreational catch has been held down through the historically depleted state of the fishery and that the proposed allocation of an equal proportion reflects current recreational catch in light of the current higher yields and biomass. In other words, the adjustment reflects that the non-commercial sector is considered to be entitled to benefit in this way (and to this extent) from the significant reductions in commercial catch, over many years, that have allowed the stock to rebuild. It also allows them to benefit from what has been gross exceedance in (and mismanagement of) its allocated share of the TAC in the past.

~~3. The Discussion Paper demonstrates the continuing failure of the Crown to monitor and control the recreational catch.~~

~~4. In circumstances where:~~

~~a. recreational fishers are already estimated to be catching their revised allowance (250 tonnes);~~

~~b. there has been a massive (300%) increase in the recreational catch in the past five years;~~

~~c. where the biomass is expected to increase further as the fishery approaches the target biomass levels; and~~

~~d. where there has been no suggestion that the current bag limits are operating as any real constrain on the recreational catch,~~

~~it is clearly irrational and irresponsible not to be urgently addressing the failed management constraints on the recreational catch to ensure it remains within the proposed allowance.~~

187 5. The proposal to allocate the TAC 50/50 between commercial and non-commercial interests is an explicit endorsement of those past exceedances and mismanagement in the recreational fishery. That is no way to manage any fishery.

~~Reallocation of TAC between Commercial and Non-Commercial Sectors~~

~~6. Under ‘Option 2’ in the MPI Discussion Paper:~~

~~a. the overall TAC for SNA7 will increase from 306 tonnes to 545 tonnes. As noted in the main submission, Southern Inshore supports this TAC increase; however~~

~~b. MPI proposes to allocate the new TAC on the following basis:~~

~~i. the TACC will increase by 50 tonnes from 200 tonnes to 250 tonnes;~~

~~ii. the recreational fishing allowance will increase by 160 tonnes from 90 tonnes to 250 tonnes;~~

~~iii. the allowance for Māori customary fishing will increase by 4 tonnes from 16 tonnes to 20 tonnes; and~~

~~iv. the allowance for other fishing-related mortality will increase by 25 tonnes from 0 tonnes to 25 tonnes.~~

~~7. This is a shift in the ratio between commercial and recreational fisheries from 70/30 to 50/50.~~

~~8. The significant increase in the recreational allowance is said by MPI to be justified as:~~

~~a. it more accurately reflects the actual level of current recreational take based on (incomplete) recreational catch surveys;~~

~~b. it better reflects the relative value of the fishery to the recreational sector, with their historical take having been compromised by the previously depleted nature of the fishery; and~~

c. the current state of the fishery has allowed the recreational catch to increase substantially since 2011/2012, with it predicted to have tripled between that last estimate and this upcoming fishing year.

9. The 4 tonne increase to Māori customary take, while small in tonnage terms, is significant in percentage terms (a 25% increase) but unexplained on the face of the Discussion Paper. The Paper acknowledges that there are very few customary authorisations reported to MPI (reporting being a legal requirement) for SNA7, and concludes that Māori must be taking their entitlement within the recreational allowance. That being the case, there appears no justification for any increase.

~~10. The law concerning the Minister’s discretion to set a revised TAC that allocates the available yield between users is now reasonably well-settled (as a result of the Snapper and Kahawai cases).~~

~~188 11. These decisions concluded that:~~

a. The allowance for non-commercial fishers, and within that recreational fishers, is an allocation that must take into account current and future controls able to be imposed by regulation on recreational catch.

b. Neither commercial nor non-commercial interests have any priority in the allocation. Rather, the Minister has a broad discretion to allocate the TAC between sectors having regard to all relevant information affecting that fishery.

c. In making this allocation, the Minister can take into account changes in population patterns and population growth and must take into account the impact of any such decision on the QMS and needs to be transparent about the reason for the decision.

~~12. The Courts have noted the impact that setting an allowance for non-commercial interests would have on the commercial sector and that the Minister needed to recognise this:1~~

The requirement to have regard to the total allowable catch also indicates that the Minister must at each stage keep in mind that s 21 is concerned with allocation of a limited resource and that what is allowed for non-commercial fishing interests will impact on the total allowable commercial catch.

~~No priority to recreational sector~~

13. In the Kahawai case recreational fishers argued strongly that their “allowance” should have priority over commercial fishers, relying in part on the wording of the Act and in part on the so-called “common law right to fish”. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. In relation to the Fisheries Act, it held:2

The sequential nature of the method of allocation provided for in s 21 does not indicate that non-commercial fishing interests are to be given any substantive priority over commercial interests. In particular, the allowance for recreational interests is to be made keeping commercial interests in mind. Within the statutory framework this is an area in which the Act envisages that the Minister has room to make policy choices. The Minister may set or vary the total allowable commercial catch at or to zero. The Act also envisages that provision will be made for non-commercial fishing interests in the stock. Implicitly that must be a reasonable provision in all the circumstances but these will include the fact that there is a limited resource in which others, including commercial fishers, have an interest. Within these limits, ss 20 and 21 leave it to the Minister to decide the basis on which he or she will decide on the appropriate allocations and what in the end the total allowable commercial catch is to be.

~~1 New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council Inc v Sanford [2009] NZSC 54 [SC Kahawai] at [53]. 2 SC Kahawai, at [61].~~

~~189 14. More generally the Court emphasised that decisions as to what was an appropriate allocation as between commercial and non-commercial interests was a policy decision:3~~

In the end, within the limits provided for by the Act, the Minister makes a policy decision as to what allocations are appropriate for non-commercial interests and other mortality and what is to be the total allowable commercial catch. These decisions are interdependent. The Act does not confer priority for any interest over the other. It leaves that judgment to the Minister. The Act envisages that the allowance for recreational interests will be a reasonable one in all the circumstances.

~~15. In this context the Courts have considered the Minister could take into account changing population patterns and population growth, and needs to do so:4~~

A further matter which points against any implication of proportionate reduction is that the Minister is in our judgment entitled to bear in mind changing population patterns and population growth. If over time a greater recreational demand arises it would be strange if the Minister was precluded by some proportional rule from giving some extra allowance to cover it, subject always to his obligation carefully to weigh all the competing demands on the TAC before deciding how much should be allocated to each interest group.

…

~~What the proportion should be, if that is the way the Minister looks at from time to time, is a matter for the Minister’s assessment bearing in mind all relevant considerations.~~

~~Need to consider impact on QMS and provide reasons~~

16. The Snapper decision also recognised the need for the Minister, when making significant decisions that had the potential to impact on the integrity of the QMS, to take this into account and to be transparent about the reasons for decisions.

17. While this Snapper decision and the statement set out below was made in the context of a proposed TACC reduction, the underlying reasoning is as relevant to any reallocation decision in the context of an increasing TAC. The Court said:5

In the Crown's submissions, a number of matters were identified as purportedly justifying the immediate and substantial economic hardship caused by the decision and what might well be seen as a substantial undermining of the QMS as a whole. Whether those matters, which were themselves not the subject of much cost/benefit analysis, were sufficient to justify the prima facie economic harshness of the Minister’s decision is not something which requires decision. All we wish to say for the future is that the Minister would be wise to undertake a careful cost/benefit analysis of a reasonable range of options available to him in moving the fishery towards MSY. If the Minister ultimately thinks that a solution having major economic impact is immediately necessary, those affected should be able to see, first, that all other reasonable possibilities have been carefully analysed, and, second, why the solution adopted was considered to be the preferable one.

~~3 SC Kahawai, at [65]. 4 New Zealand Fishing Industry Association Inc v Minister of Fisheries CA82/97, 22 July 1997, [CA Snapper] at page 18.~~

~~5 CA Snapper, at page 23.~~

190 18. When the Court was referring to the potential for TAC and TACC decisions to have the effect of “substantial[ly] undermining the QMS as a whole” it was referring to evidence that had been given explaining from a law and economics perspective how such decisions could destroy the economic incentives inherent in the QMS. The QMS uses an economic framework (the creation and allocation of property rights in perpetuity – quota) to achieve key fisheries management objectives. The creation of secure property rights is intended to (and has in practice) incentivised commercial fishers to nurture, develop and protect the fishery. The long-term value of their quota is inextricably bound up with the long-term sustainability of the fishery.

19. One of the key enhancements to the QMS over time was the creation of proportional quotas in 1990, which transferred the biological risk of TAC changes from the Crown to quota owners. Quota owners bore the full economic cost of TACC reductions but received the benefit of TACC increases. Again this incentivised commercial fishers to take a long-term view as to what levels of catch were sustainable and incentivised them to endure the pain of TACC reductions if, in the long-term, that would allow a fishery to rebuild. It is critical, therefore, that commercial fishers understand that they will receive the benefit of TAC increases when a fishery rebuilds given the economic framework represented by the QMS.

20. If decisions relating to the setting of TACs, TACCs, and allowances for non-commercial use are made in a manner that ignores this fundamental economic framework then, as the Court of Appeal reminded the Minister, this has the potential to substantially undermine the QMS framework as a whole. While the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Snapper decision confirms that some reallocation is legally permissible, in appropriate circumstances, it is critical that this is done in a manner that protects the integrity of the QMS and looks to insure quota owners’ rights and expectations are not unreasonably displaced. The reallocation of a fishery in an unprincipled way will undoubtedly undermine the QMS.

~~Summary~~

~~21. In summary:~~

a. In the present case the increased allocation for customary Māori take seems to ignore the best available information as to the likely level of customary utilisation. There seems no rational basis for believing that allowance (albeit small) will be utilised and in that sense it has the effect of setting aside part of the TAC and preventing it from being taken. Put another way, given the need for the total TAC to be allocated, this yield should properly form part of the TACC absent further information (which MPI don’t seem to hold).

b. The allowance for non-commercial fishers, and within that recreational fishers, is an allocation that must take into account current and future controls able to be imposed by regulation on recreational catch. The proposal in the Discussion Paper does not do that.

191 c. Non-commercial interests have no priority in the allocation. Rather, the Minister has a broad discretion to allocate the TAC between sectors having regard to all relevant information affecting that fishery.

d. In making such decisions, however, the Minister must take into account the impact of any such decision on the QMS and needs to be transparent about the reason for the decision. The proposal in the Discussion Paper clearly does not do that. The decisions and its justification undermine the QMS framework.

e. In making allocations, the Minister can take into account changes in population patterns and population growth. In doing so, the Minister must act in light of the evidence and best available information. The proposal in the discussion paper does not meet that test.

~~Management of the recreational catch~~

~~Historical context in issue~~

22. The commercial fishing sector has been expressly concerned for decades at the Crown’s failure to put in place measures to, first, properly monitor and assess the recreational catch and, second, to constrain it, through appropriate management measures, to its allocated share of the TAC.

23. For their part, successive governments have repeatedly acknowledged the central importance of good information to fisheries management. Whilst MPI have acknowledged the need to constrain the recreational sector to its allocated share of the TAC they only pay lip service to this need.

~~24. This can be seen in the following, now historical, policy documents:~~

~~a. As far back as 1983, the then Assistant Director of the Fisheries Management Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries published an article in which he said:6~~

In New Zealand, concern about the interaction between marine recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen, has largely been that recreational fishing should be to some extent protected from commercial fishing. It should also be recognised that recreational fishing, which currently has minimal management (for example no licensing is required, and there is no control and little knowledge of total recreational fishing effort) may have substantial impact on some commercial fisheries. In some cases, commercial fisheries may need protection from recreational fisheries.

b. In 1991 the Government commissioned a report from Dr Peter Pearse on fisheries policy development in New Zealand.7 Dr Pearse, of Canada, is internationally recognised as an expert in natural resources management. At page 9 of his report he argued for the recreational sector to be allocated an explicit share of the fishery. He said:

~~6 “Growth has led to conflict” (June 1983). 7 See Peter H Pearse Building on Process: Fisheries Policy Development in New Zealand: A report prepared for the Ministry of Fisheries (July 1991).~~

192 The absence of specific rights, and any form of licensing, leaves a dearth of information about the numbers of recreational fishers and their catches of fish. This is essential information that recreational fishing groups need to promote their interests, and resource managers need to manage recreational fisheries.

c. A year later the then Minister of Fisheries commissioned a Task Force to review the fisheries legislation. Their report, released in 1992, concluded that one of the major issues raised by submissions from representatives of recreational fishing interests was “the need to establish estimates of recreational harvest”. The report went on to say:8

The major difficulty in the past in adequately taking account of recreational and traditional catches has been collecting information on traditional and recreational harvests. This information is important for policy making in general, but is vital for some species such as snapper and paua, which are important for recreational as well as traditional and commercial fishers.

d. In 1994, in the context of work undertaken by officials on new fisheries legislation (which eventually became the Fisheries Act 1996), a report to an Official Steering Committee on “Allocation of TAC and Priority of Fishery Stakeholders” stated:

Sustainable use of the fisheries is dependent on the aggregate catch of all stakeholders not exceeding the TAC. To this end it is important to monitor recreational and Maori take. This information is important to ensure that total catch does not exceed the TAC, (this information is necessary even if the adjustment to catch levels is borne solely by the commercial sector). Also, a major barrier to providing an explicit share for non-commercial fishers has been the lack of information upon which to base the recreational and traditional Maori take. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is currently conducting a major survey to, among other things, more accurately quantify the non-commercial take. Consideration needs to be given to ways of collecting this information on a regular basis.

e. In 2005, 13 years after the Task Force Report, the government released its Shared Fisheries Proposals. Nothing had changed. The policy documents continued to acknowledge that such information is the critical first step in fisheries management, but also admitted that governments’ attempts to get this information had produced grossly unreliable results: 9

Accurate and reliable information on catch is fundamental for effective fisheries management. Reporting requirements exist for commercial and some components of customary take, however information on recreational take is obtained through surveys. This information is expensive to obtain and of variable quality. Efforts made since the early 1990s to assess the participation rates for recreational fishing, and the resulting catch of the main species, have resulted in estimates of catch and participation that vary considerably. Recent funding for recreational fishing surveys is enhancing information. However it is essential that further consideration be given to tools and investment to improve the reliability, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness of information on recreational participation and harvest.

~~8 See page 49 of Task Force Report (1992). 9 MFish advice to the Minister dated 16 December 2005 Shared Fisheries Policy Development, para 27.~~

~~193 f. The Shared Fisheries Proposals did not result in any substantive policy or legislative change.~~

g. Nor did the judicial challenges to the Crown’s management of both the northern snapper and kahawai fisheries, result in any meaningful change in approach by the government of the day or even reference to the requirements of those judgments in the operational policy advice provided to government in the context of decisions similar to the present SNA7 management review.

~~Key findings from the Snapper and Kahawai proceedings~~

~~25. In the Snapper case, the High Court held it was implicit, both legally and as a matter of common sense to impose controls on recreational fishers under the Act:10~~

The Minister can, and should, consider the possibility of additional controls upon recreational fishing also. In addition, there is room for common sense. There will be no point in restricting TACC for conservation purposes if the commercial catch so conserved simply disappears upwards on recreational hooks. There would be no conservation gain. I am satisfied that when Parliament empowered the Minister to reduce the TACC for conservation purposes – not to improve recreational catch rate, but for conservation purposes – it expected the Minister to take any concurrent steps necessary to minimise sabotage by recreational fishing. … Alternatively, … the Minister is not to adopt policies calculated to frustrate the conservation purposes of the Act. Alternatively again, the obligation can be characterised as a Wednesbury rationality point; preventing the Minister from blowing hot and cold. … The significant point is that both law and common sense dictate that a Minister should not reduce the TACC for conservation reasons unless able to take, and taking, reasonable steps to avoid the reduction being rendered futile through increased recreational

26. Ten years on, the Court was faced with similar criticism of the Crown’s inaction in the context of the management of the recreational catch in the kahawai fishery. The High Court readily acknowledged the obligations on the Minister:11

There is no doubt that the Minister must do everything possible, within the constraints of the Ministry’s resources, to monitor recreational catches of kahawai and employ improved information gathering techniques for the recreational fishery. The Minister said so himself, on two occasions. MFish advice was to the same effect. It is reinforced by Mr Scott’s emphasis on the fact that recreational fishers have access to over 50% of the kahawai stocks.

27. The Supreme Court did not ultimately focus on this issue, but did emphasise that the Minister has the power to control and therefore constrain the recreational catch to its allocated share of the TAC. The Court said:12

Although what the Minister allows for is an estimate of what recreational interests will catch, it is an estimate of a catch which the Minister is able to control. The Minister is, for example, able to impose bag and fish length limits. The allowance accordingly represents what the Minister considers recreational interests should be able to catch but also all that they will be able to catch. The Act envisages that the relevant powers will be exercised as

~~10 New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen Inc v Minister of Fisheries HC Wellington CP237/95, 24 April 1997 [HC Snapper] at 101–102.~~

~~11 The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council Inc v Minister of Fisheries HC Auckland CIV-2005-404- 4495, 21 March 2007 at [141].~~

~~12 SC Kahawai, at [56].~~

~~194 necessary to achieve that goal. The allowance is an estimate and an allocation of part of the total allowable catch in that way.~~

~~28. These decisions establish:~~

a. Having allocated a share of the TAC to the recreational sector, the Minister needs to use the powers available under the Act to: (a) constrain the recreational sector to that share; and (b) monitor the recreational catch to know whether this is occurring or not.

b. In making these decisions, the Minister must act reasonably (rationally). The Minister cannot say one thing but by his actions (or inaction) allow another to occur (or as the Court said “blowing hot and cold”) or allowing management decisions to be sabotaged by an increase in recreational catch.

~~Concerns with SNA7 Discussion Paper~~

29. In the SNA7 Discussion Paper there is an absence of compelling evidence on which to justify the reallocation and the proposal undermines the objectives of the Act and fails to meet the legal requirements outlined by successive courts. The Discussion Paper represents a continuation of the Ministry’s abject failure to monitor and constrain the recreational catch in recent years at least.

30. There is nothing unreasonable about recreational fishers seeking an increase in their allowance as the fishery is rebuilt. However, what is inadequate is the monitoring and controls being put in place to ensure this occurs in an appropriate way. The Discussion Paper:

~~a. records that the recreational catch is likely to have tripled in the space of four or five years (since the last estimate in 2011/2012);~~

~~b. acknowledges the recreational catch is now likely to be in the order of 50 per cent of the total catch;~~

~~c. considers that the proposed allowance of 250 tonnes under option 2 (an increase from 90 tonnes) better reflects what recreational fishers are currently actually taking;~~

~~d. assumes the recreational catch increases proportionally with biomass;~~

~~e. assumes the biomass will continue to increase as the fishery returns to a stock level that will produce maximal yields; and~~

f. indicates that public resources are being deployed to estimate the recreational catch using aerial overflights, boat ramp interviews, and web-based ramp cameras but these results will not be available until after March 2017.

~~31. Despite this, the Discussion Paper:~~

~~195 a. fails to acknowledge or even refer to the Crown’s obligations to constrain the recreational fishery to its allocated share of the TAC;~~

~~b. continues to acknowledge that the Ministry does not have reliable estimates of recreational catch (and, as usual, that more data is currently being obtained and will be available shortly); and~~

c. states that in the meantime no further controls are proposed on recreational catch (which are currently a daily bag limit of 10, except for a sub-limit of three in the Marlborough Sounds, and an MLS of 25 cm) – but that they will be looked at in the future.

32. This is a surprising and disappointing statement when MPI have clearly failed to manage the recreational catch for the past decade or longer. One would think addressing this mismanagement would be a priority, not perpetuating it.

33. Recreational fishers are already estimated to be catching their revised allowance (250 tonnes), there has been a massive (300%) increase in the recreational catch in the past five years, where the biomass is expected to increase further, and there has been no suggestion that the current bag limits are operating as any real constrain on the recreational catch. In these circumstances it is irrational and irresponsible for MPI not to be imposing further immediate management measures on the recreational catch to ensure it remains within the proposed allowance.

~~Conclusion~~

34. While it legally open to the Minister to reallocate the TAC, so as to move from a 70/30 split to a 50/50 split between commercial and recreational use, to do so has serious implications for the long-term integrity of the QMS. If this is to occur it is critical that it is done in a reasoned and transparent manner that does not undermine (a) the commercial fishers’ incentives to continue to invest in, nurture and protect the fishery; or (b) the commercial fishers’ quota rights and expectations.

35. In making decisions about the allocation of the TAC between various sectors the Minister must therefore take into account the impact of any such decision on the QMS and be transparent about the reason for the decision. The rationale offered in the Discussion Paper for this reallocation is fairly light on analysis and is essentially that recreational catch has been held down through the historically depleted state of the fishery and that the proposed allocation of an equal proportion reflects current recreational catch in light of the current higher yields and biomass. There is no discussion in the Paper about the impact this reallocation has on the QMS, and no indication that the Minister has properly considered the significant likely impact of shifting the allocation so dramatically.

36. The increased allocation for customary Māori take seems to ignore the best available information as to the likely level of customary utilisation. There seems no rational basis for believing that allowance (albeit small) will be utilised and in that sense it has the effect of setting aside part of the TAC and preventing it from being taken. Put

~~196 another way, given the need for the total TAC to be allocated, this yield should properly form part of the TACC.~~

37. MPI has stood back and allowed the recreational catches to significantly exceed the allowances made for them (90 tonnes when the TAC was last set). In light of this recreational over-catch, MPI now proposes to simply increase the recreational allowance and in the process to deny the commercial industry a share of the increased abundance. This improvement in the fishery is due to good commercial management and the significant sustainability actions that the commercial fishery takes. However these gains are being lost to recreational hooks. MPI must dramatically and immediately improve the way that it manages the recreational fishery to make sure that recreational catch is held at the levels allocated to it, and that the sustainability gains in the SNA7 fishery are not lost.

~~197 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~198 199 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~209 Review of management controls for the South Island longfin and shortfin eel fisheries Submission to the Minister for Primary Industries~~

~~Dr Jan Wright Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~210 Contents~~

~~Introduction 3~~

~~Longfin eels are a taonga, vulnerable, and under pressure 3~~

~~Looking at the weight of evidence 4~~

~~In conclusion 6~~

~~Notes 7~~

~~211 Introduction~~

In April 2013, I released a report titled On a pathway to extinction? An investigation into the status and management of the longfin eel. In this report, I concluded that 3 the longfin eel population is on a long, downward trajectory. I recommended that commercial fishing of longfin eels be suspended until the population is shown to have recovered.

I have been encouraged by the Government’s response so far to my recommendations, in particular, the commitment to “increase the population and improve the long-term sustainability of longfin eels”.1 I also welcome the recent separation of South Island eel stocks, and the current review of total catch limits for South Island eel fisheries. My submission addresses this review.

~~Longfin eels are a taonga, vulnerable, and under pressure~~

Longfin eels are extraordinary creatures that are found only in New Zealand. They are the largest and longest-lived freshwater eels in the world and the top predator in our lakes, rivers, and streams. Tuna (eels) are a cherished taonga for Māori – they are an important food source and have been interwoven into whakapapa and legends.

Longfin eels can grow as long as two metres and live to more than a hundred years. They breed only once at the end of a perilous migration thousands of kilometres north into the tropical Pacific Ocean. The larvae drift back on ocean currents and are washed into estuaries and river mouths right around New Zealand. The nature of this long slow lifecycle means that the species is particularly vulnerable.2

There are three main pressures on the longfin eel population – fishing, loss of habitat, and barriers to their migration up and down rivers. These pressures and the vulnerability of the species mean that decisions about the management of longfins must be made with caution.

~~212 Looking at the weight of evidence~~

Following the release of my 2013 report, the Ministry for Primary Industries convened a panel of scientists to review the status of longfin eels. The panel did not reach a clear conclusion about the status of the species. However, the panel did conclude that 4 the main measure – catch per unit of effort (CPUE) – “needed to be interpreted with caution”. As well as suggesting a number of improvements to this measure, the panel recommended a more comprehensive approach be taken, “in which classical and alternative data sources are used to the full”.3

Following the panel’s report, the Ministry has improved the quality of the CPUE indicator, and commissioned research that may provide other information to help give a broader understanding of the state and trends in the population. However, the Ministry has continued to base its assessment of the status of the longfin population only on CPUE and landed catches.4

~~In contrast, my conclusion that the species is in trouble was based on a comprehensive weight-of-evidence approach that drew widely on the best available information.~~

~~During my investigation, the results of two analyses were key to my conclusion.~~

~~The first analysis is of the age structure of the population.~~

In a healthy eel population, the number of eels in each age class falls with increasing age. Figure 1 shows the lengths of thousands of longfin eels measured in surveys undertaken by NIWA. (The length of an eel is a good proxy for its age.) The first bar in this graph should be higher than the second, but it is not. There is a ‘hole’ in the population that will not show up in catch data for many years. In contrast, Figure 2 shows that the age structure of the shortfin eel population is as it should be.5

~~The Ministry has suggested two reasons for the difference between the age structure of the two eel populations. Neither is convincing.6~~

The second key analysis is based on the Freshwater Fish Database. It shows that the probability of finding at least one longfin eel in its natural habitat has fallen from 70% to 45% in the last 30 years. The Ministry also suggests that this is not meaningful – again I am not convinced.7

~~213 5~~

Data source: Jellyman, 2012. Figure 1. For longfins, the proportion of elvers (shown in the first bar) is much lower than would be expected and strongly points to a reduction in the resilience of the population.

~~Data source: Jellyman, 2012. Figure 2. For shortfins, the age structure does not show a similar reduction of elvers, and indicates a healthier population.~~

~~214 In conclusion~~

I have not seen any evidence that alters my assessment that the longfin eel population is in serious trouble and on a slow path to extinction. We must be cautious in our 6 management of this extraordinary creature. Fishing is not the only pressure on the species.8 However, reducing the catch is the only action with immediate potential to reverse the decline of the species.

I acknowledge that the Minister for Primary Industries must provide for the utilisation of the fishery, but this must not jeopardise the sustainability of the species.9 In this consideration it is important to remember that longfin eels represent much more than a fishery. They are found only in New Zealand and are a taonga to tangata whenua. They sit at the top of the food chain in freshwater ecosystems. Our children and grandchildren would be poorer for their loss.

Based on the weight of evidence, it remains my firm conclusion that the longfin eel population is in trouble, and that the commercial catch should be suspended until it is clear that the species is recovering.

The recommended approach by the Ministry for Primary Industries is to set catch limits at the average annual catch. This will not achieve the Minister’s goal to “improve the long- term sustainability of longfin eels”.10 Much more is needed.

~~Notes~~

~~215 1. Hon Nathan Guy, Cabinet paper, Proposed management measures for longfin eel fisheries, 1 August 2014, p.2.~~

2. In contrast, there is less concern about shortfin eels. They grow faster and breed at an earlier age, and can thrive in the still and often muddy waters of lowland waterways. Their movement along rivers is less likely to be blocked by dams because they generally live nearer the coast. And, unlike longfin eels which are found only in New Zealand, the shortfin eel is found elsewhere in the South Pacific, allowing for a buffer of extra breeding stock.

3. The independent science panel stated “From our experience in the assessment of (northern) 7 temperate eel stocks we know that eels are difficult to assess. This is not only because many of the eels’ biological characteristics are unknown or atypical amongst exploited fish species, but also because eels cut across governance structures, span environments as different as the open ocean and the mountain creek, are impacted by land, river and fisheries activities, and can be monitored and assessed using a range of diverse methodologies.” Haro et al., 2013. p.22.

~~4. Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016. Ministry for Primary Industries Discussion Paper No: 2016/15. p.3.~~

~~5. Note that these surveys do not provide information on the numbers of glass eels, as any young eels have grown into elvers and are longer than 70mm by the time they reach the survey sites.~~

6. The first suggestion is that because the data comes from many different rivers and streams, it is unreliable. However, it is because over 10,000 longfins have been measured in many different sites across the country that the evidence for the overall pattern is so strong.

The second suggestion is that the method used to catch the eels in order to measure them may be more effective at catching shortfin elvers than longfin elvers. The hypothesis is that longfin elvers may burrow deeper into the stream bed and therefore not be stunned by the electric current. Research has been commissioned to test this theory, but so far no evidence has been found to support it. Further, the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Sampling Protocols for wadeable rivers and streams state that electric fishing is an unbiased method and does not under-sample either species (Joy, M., David, B., and Lake, M. 2013. New Zealand Freshwater Fish Sampling Protocols. Part 1 - Wadeable Rivers and Streams. Massey University Publishing, p.8). These protocols were developed in consultation with 16 fish experts.

7. One criticism that has been made of this analysis is that changes over time, such as the kinds of sites surveyed or the effort expended, could have introduced bias into the results. However, the data was screened for such bias and none that affected the conclusions was found. (Jellyman 2012, p.39).

Another criticism was that there has been an increase in the recording of sites that are dry at some times of the year and would then contain no fish of any kind. However, these amount to 1% of the sites in the database and do not affect the strong trend detected in the analysis (NIWA Database Administrator, pers. comm., 12 March 2013).

~~NIWA are currently reanalysing information in the Freshwater Fish Database as part of the national environmental reporting programme run by the Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand.~~

8. Incidentally, the large-scale commercial fishing of eels began in the 1960s with the arrival of Dutch fishermen with their efficient fyke nets must have been instrumental in changing the pakeha view of eels as vermin.

~~9. Fisheries Act 1996, section 8. Also see NZ Recreational Fishing Council v Sandford Limited, SC 40/2008, [2009] NZSC 54, 28 May 2009, para. 39~~

~~10. Hon Nathan Guy, Cabinet paper Proposed management measures for longfin eel fisheries, 1 August 2014, p.2.~~

~~216 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~217 218 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~219 Working Waters Trust's Submission on ‘Review of management controls for the South Island longfin and shortfin eel fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16)’ in 2016’~~

~~Submission closing date 11th July 2016~~

1. Working Waters Trust is a charitable trust dedicated to celebrating the wonders of New Zealand's native freshwater fish and restoring and protecting their habitats. Our projects are spread across numerous catchments in Canterbury, Otago and Southland. We work alongside rūnanga, private landowners, councils, government departments and school and community groups on various freshwater restoration/rehabilitation projects which benefit endangered native freshwater fish and improve water quality. We are concerned about the widespread decline in aquatic biodiversity and water quality in New Zealand's freshwaters.

2. Working Waters Trust supports a moratorium on the commercial harvest of longfin eel (LFE) i.e. zero allocation of Total Allocated Commercial Catch (TACC) for LFE 11-16, until it can be conclusively demonstrated that such harvest is having no impact on the long term viability of this species i.e. that the biomass level can support the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The proposed Options in the consultation document, which allow for any level of commercial harvest other than nominal, are insufficiently precautionary to avoid decline and possible extinction of the LFE, let alone to “result in an increase in eel abundance over time” a stated goal of the proposed South Island TAC setting.

~~The reasons for proposing a TACC of zero for LFE 11-16 until further review are as follows:~~

~~220~~

3. The longfin eel (LFE) is characterised as more vulnerable to harvest pressures than the shortfin eel (SFE) because they are slower growing, mature much later, live longer and do not migrate for spawning until later in life. In addition to these characteristics, an another factor which sets them apart from other QMS species, LFE are endemic and classed as ‘At Risk – Declining’ – which gives them the same biogeographic status and conservation ranking as the little spotted kiwi.

4. Under the Quota Management System, the Minister of Fisheries is responsible for ensuring that fishstocks are maintained at or above a level that can produce the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). Only once the MSY is identified, should a Total Allocated Catch (TAC) of a stock at that time be determined. The long generational timespan of the LFE allows the question whether a MSY can be confidently calculated for this species. Therefore Working Waters Trust proposes that a precautionary approach to setting of TAC, and in particular TACC as a large component of the TAC, should be taken.

5. The 2016 South Island LFE stock assessments produced abundance targets and sustainability limits for those stocks with reliable indices of relative abundance (LFE 15 and 16). However, MPI should express caution to intrepret any effects of management (i.e. setting of abundance targets and sustainability limits for LFE 15 and 16) in any short-term changes in catch data due to the long generational life history of the LFE. It should be remembered that these indices are for relative abundance, not absolute abundance. In addition, stock status is uncertain for the other stocks (i.e. LFE 11,12,13,14) as there was insufficient catch and effort data to produce reliable trends of relative abundance. Due to this lack of data nor strong management tools, Working Waters Trust again proposes that a precautionary approach to setting of TAC, and in particular TACC as a large component of the TAC, should be taken.

6. The Minister of Fisheries must identify the share of the TAC that can be harvested commercially - the TACC - for each stock. The Minister must set this limit having had regard to the level of non-commercial fishing (customary and amateur) and after

221 having made an allowance for other sources of fishing-related mortality of the stock. Working Waters Trust proposes that TAC for LFE should be set at a tonnage to allow for the continuation of the current level of recreational and cultural harvest, which is a minority component of the current TAC because it is of much higher social and cultural value than the commercial harvest which is overwhelmingly exported overseas.

~~222 11 July 2016~~

~~To: Ministry for Primary Industries - [email protected]~~

~~Re: Review of management controls for the South Island longfin and shortfin eel fisheries (LFE 11- 16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016~~

Kāti Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki is submitting in support of the Ministry’s review of management for the Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries. We support the recognition that the Ministry gives to some longfin eel stocks being in decline and that adjustments are required that allow the population to rebuild.

We support Option 1 for LFE 15 that proposes the TAC and TACC be set based on half the average annual commercial catch for longfin eels reported since the fishery entered the QMS in 2000 (68.57 t). This means as per Table 11 in the discussion document that a TAC of 44.23 tonne, customary TAC 8.84 tonne, Rec TAC of 0.89 tonne and a TACC of 35 tonne is appropriate.

Historically, tuna was one of the most significant kai roto/kai awa available to be harvested. Taiaroa, a significant leader of the 18th century, considered the koiro (conger eel), the blind eel (tuere) and the lamprey (kanakana) “were delicacies to former generations as they are with present generations ….. it is now a common source of food.”

Our Kai Tahu tohuka passed on the whakapapa of, and raraka korero associated with tuna within our people. An account from Peti Hineiwetea recorded in 1880 that tuna was a heavenly being from the 10th heaven and because of the heat there descended to this world. Tuna resided in a pool known as Muriwai Owhata. Hine Turepo, wife of Maui went to fetch water from the pool and was touched inappropriately by Tuna.

Alarmed by this action Hine Turepo sought the help of her people to discover what had touched her and they saw the form of Tuna in the pool and determined that this monster must be destroyed. A tororaro vine was formed into an eel basket named Te Papa-a-kura-o-Takaroa and placed in a ditch dug close to where the water flowed fastest. As an amount of seawater was flowing into the drain, Tuna followed the current.

Tuna entered the eel basket and was pulled to shore by the people. Tuna was then killed and cut up into portions. Tuna’s head was cast out to sea hence the koiro – the conger eel, Tuna’s tail was also

~~Marae: Apes Road, Puketeraki. Office: 121 Grimness Street C/0- Karitane PDC, Karitane, 9440,~~

~~Phone (03) 465 7300, Fax (03) 465 7318, Email: [email protected]~~

223 cast out to sea hence the blind eel and the lamprey. The central portion was cast inland, hence eels. So, Tuna perished and his descendants are those who appeared from his severed head (koiro), from his tail (tuere and Kanakana) and those who bear his name tuna - the fish.

We have learnt about the size and age tuna attain and this makes us recognise tuna as sentinels of our roto hōhonu, awa and wai repo. The eradication attempts by earlier acclimatisation societies in favour of piscatorial possums (trout) was a sad indictment of those times and Kāi Tahu have long sought to afford long fin and short fin tuna the respect due to them as original inhabitants of our wai roto and awa.

We support the most conservative of the options for each of the LF stock units LFE 11 - 16. We have above referred specifically in this submission to the Otago (AV) portion of LFE 15, since this is where our rūnaka is based. The MPI paper considers LFE Otago are at the soft limit at which options should be taken. The adequacy of the data or the methods for deciding on TAC does not appear explicit, however, we are reassured by our mahika kai tuna expert Dr Rose Clucas that the decision has been made to reassess the TAC.

Where the generational time of an adult female longfin is likely to mean that she came up the river in the 1970's, then determining current quota on catch data since 2001 (Figure 9) implies that we should be acting with considerable caution when setting catch limits.

It has been reported within korero on our Puketeraki Marae that the South Island longfin eel forms the bulk of the commercial take. In the Clutha/Mata-Au River NIWA fisheries analyses has found large longfin females were poorly represented and were estimated at 4% of the total longfin biomass. A further analysis of two years of longfin commercial catch data from 1996 to 1998, found the majority of the total catch were 49% immature (sexually undifferentiated) and 37% were male.

A skew in the sex ratio supporting more male longfins is now recognised as a demographic trend in the large rivers of the lower South Island. Although the upper commercial limit is now set at 4 kg, there are very few longfin that are now caught at 4 kg as the probability of capture before an eel reaches this size is so high. Unfished populations are dominated by large females which is the biological norm in which this species has evolved to be successful. The longfin is a slow growing long- lived species that reproduces once, investing in the growth of large females for the required levels of fecundity to ensure adequate recruitment.

We hope that this readjustment of the quota will be adequate to begin to reverse the decline in long fin abundance in our lakes and rivers. The long generational time for longfin means that we should not be complacent in our monitoring and responsiveness implementing further appropriate changes to quota as further information of the long fin biomass accrues, and we seek to build better informed models for interpreting population data that improves our management of eel in New Zealand.

In addition, it has been suggested that there are no significant effects on non-target species with regard to the eel fishery. We have taken on board concerns being expressed by our experts with giant kokopu (Galaxias argenteus) that inhabitant lowland waterways and whose habitat overlaps significantly with shortfin eel. Giant kokopu have been in decline and in many places are almost non- existent from places they were previously common, in particular Otago. Anyone who has fished for

~~Marae: Apes Road, Puketeraki. Office: 121 Grimness Street C/- Karitane PDC, Karitane, 9440,~~

~~Phone (03) 465 7300, Fax (03) 465 7318, Email: [email protected]~~

~~224 giant kokopu knows that fyke nets are an efficient method for catching these fish. Survival of these fish in a net full of eel, where nets are left for a number of nights, seems unlikely.~~

Also the trophic cascade effects of removing an apex predator from our waterways by commercial fishing is given scant regard. The sustained removal of an ecological dominant on other native fish species requires attention. Where its removal is likely to have allowed exotic salmonids to have taken up this role we suggest the effect has largely been detrimental.

~~The most desirable outcome that could come from this readjustment of quota is a restoration of longfin numbers and in particular, the restocking of large females back into our awa.~~

~~Finally, we support the conservation option for the shortfin eel in the SFE 15 area.~~

~~Thank-you for the opportunity to submit on this important kaupapa.~~

~~Nahaku noa,~~

~~Matapura Ellison Chairperson~~

~~Marae: Apes Road, Puketeraki. Office: 121 Grimness Street C/- Karitane PDC, Karitane, 9440,~~

~~Phone (03) 465 7300, Fax (03) 465 7318, Email: [email protected]~~

~~225 MPI review of TACs/TACCs for South Island eels – SUBMISSION POINTS FROM TE TAUMUTU RŪNANGA~~

New QMA State of the fishery and proposed TAC/TACC Proposed Ngāi Tahu Response MPI perspective Ngāi Tahu information New TACC Other matters SFE 13 Adequate data/’core fishers’ to make an assessment The ANG 13 commercial fishers missed the migrants (shortfin males) Set TACC at current SFE catch to date (since 2000). Retain customary non-commercial of ‘standardised’ CPUE trends. The information in 2013/14 due to the lake opening – effectively leading to a 50% allowance at 20% of TAC. suggests ANG 13 is significantly above the target increase in ANG 13 quota caught from ‘feeder’ eels in AS1 (shortfin Status quo to remain (no TACC increase) as sufficient time is required to level and is therefore able to sustain a TAC increase. females). The impact of this increase has yet to be assessed. assess the impact of the new lake opening regime on commercial fishing Set TACC at current catch levels or increase TACC by distributions between SFE 13 migrant males and feeder females. 10%. Set customary at 20% of TAC. Customary fishers have been shelving catch since 1 October 2000. The customary allowance is 31.26 tonne per annum (x16 years = 500.16 In addition customary fishers and Tangata Tiaki/Kaitiaki do not support the tonne), whereas the customary catch is 25,108 eels (at an assumed reallocation of shelved customary catch to the commercial sector. average catch weight of 2kg = 50.22 tonne taken) leaving 449.94 tonne of shelved SFE 13 stock since 2000. This is equivalent to a 3.7 year ‘rāhui’ on commercial fishing in SFE 13.

MPI generally fail to acknowledge this contribution to the increase in commercial CPUE. Although at the October 2012 Eel Fisheries Assessment Working Group meeting Marc Griffiths (MPI) and Mike Beentjes (NIWA) agreed that the customary shelve has contributed to the increase in commercial CPUE.

LFE 13 ANG 13 is a shortfin-only fishery. Set nominal TACC. Commercial fishers are not able to harvest LFE due to regulatory Set TACC at nominal figure of 1 tonne. Recognise that fishers on Te Set nominal customary non- closures in the tributaries and due to the Lakebed Agreement with Te Waihora do not fish longfin tuna. The agreement between Te Rūnanga o commercial allowance of 1 tonne. Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. Ngāi Tahu and Te Waihora commercial fishers also supports the non-take of longfin tuna.

~~226 227 228 229 230 Submission on the review of management controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin eel fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~Manaaki Tuna: July 2016~~

 Manaaki Tuna is a group composed of researchers, conservationists, iwi members, and members of the general public who are concerned about the future of the longfin eel. One of our core purposes Is to advocate for a moratorium on the commercial harvest of longfins, until it can be conclusively demonstrated that such harvest is having no impact on the long term viability of this species. Our submission on the MPI discussion paper1 reflects this purpose.

 Manaaki Tuna does not advocate for a moratorium on recreational or customary catch- i.e Manaaki Tuna does not support that recreational allowances is set at 2% of the TAC (with a minimum of 1 tonne), customary set at 20% of the TAC and commercial set at 78% of the TAC. Recreational allowances should be set at 10% of the TAC (with a minimum of 1 tonne), customary set at 90% of the TAC and commercial set at 0% of the TAC.

 Longfin eels are extremely long-lived, semelparous and panmictic, which makes them unlike all other species managed under the QMS and, as such, they require a different approach to management. For example, most, if not all other QMS species (except shortfin eel) breed annually, and mature at a younger age than longfin eels. For a semelparous animal which has been aged at a current maximum of 106 years old, it is not reasonable to expect to see the effects of management reflected in short-term changes in catch data (e.g. that which is assumed by the ‘limits’ approach which is proposed for LFE 15 & 16).

 In addition to these characteristics, and another factor which sets them apart from other QMS species, longfin eels are endemic and classed as ‘At Risk – Declining’ – which gives them the same biogeographic status and conservation ranking as the little spotted kiwi.

1 MPI 2016. Review of management controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin eel fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016. MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/15. Available: http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and- resources/consultations/review-of-fisheries-sustainability-measures-for-1-october-2016/

~~231 [Type here]~~

 Longfin eels require a much more precautionary approach than is proposed in the discussion paper. MPI acknowledges this need, but it is our opinion that the proposed measures (i.e. continuing to allow for any level of commercial exploitation at all) is insufficiently precautionary to avoid extinction of this species, let alone to “result in an increase in eel abundance over time” (stated goal of the proposed South Island TAC setting), or to “maintain adequate spawning biomass to provide for high levels of recruitment” (objective of the Draft National Fisheries Plan for Freshwater).

~~ It is our opinion that continued commercial longfin harvest under current circumstances is not only insufficiently precautionary, but is also socially inequitable (see Figs 1 & 2 for explanation).~~

1. For longfin and shortfin eel populations within ANG 11 (Nelson/Marlborough), 12 (North Canterbury) and 14 (South Canterbury), there is currently insufficient data to determine stock trends or status against limits and targets. The Minister for Primary Industries has indicated it intends to progress a package of management measures aimed at ensuring an increase in the number of longfin eels and their long-term sustainability. These management measures include:

~~a. The introduction of abundance target levels to support assessment of the status of the longfin eel population and rate of rebuild.~~

~~b. Improved information from the commercial longfin eel fishery to better inform stock assessment.~~

Manaaki Tuna supports these proposed management measures in order to to better inform stock assessment ie in order to set TACC. Until these management measures have been completed, Manaaki Tuna supports a zero TACC for LFE.

~~ For these reasons we submit that TACCs should be set at zero for LFE 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.~~

~~232 Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating why continued commercial exploitation of longfin eels is insufficiently precautionary.~~

~~Figure 2. Flowchart illustrating why continued commercial exploitation of longfin eels is socially inequitable.~~

~~233 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Alanah Mullin s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 10:15 p.m. To: FMSubmissions; Alanah Mullin Subject: Please help us protect our treasured Tuna (Eel). Submission~~

~~Importance: High~~

~~Alanah Mullin s 9(2)(a)~~

~~10 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~Kia ora,~~

My name is Alanah Mullin and I have been honoured over the past ten years through my work with Project Twin Streams and EcoMatters to learn more about what a true treasure our Tuna is in our waterways. It has also been a privilege to share the specialness of Tuna with our children and other community neighbours in the areas that I work in West Auckland as part of restoring our urban waterways together. I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.

I have believe that the over fishing of our Tuna is severely threatening the species. People have been undervaluing the incredible life of Tuna (Eel) the long lifecycle and journey they go through to the Pacific to breed, the part they play in our streams.

“It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

"The commercial harvest of any declining native species is unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century."

~~Please consider my plea that they be protected and that the commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Mauri ora, Alanah Mullin~~

~~1 234 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Laurence Fearnley s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 12:24 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on Discussion Paper 2016/15 Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016.

~~[email protected]~~

~~Submission on Discussion Paper 2016/15 Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~I am writing this submission on discussion paper 2016/15 Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

I have lived in the South Island my entire life and during the past thirty years have been a recreational tramper, making frequent trips to the Nelson, West Coast, Canterbury, Otago and Southland backcountry. During the eighties it was not unusual to spot longfin eels in the inland rivers of the South Island but now such sightings are rare and it is clear that these eels are facing a serious decline in numbers. The 2013 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report stated “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels” and I agree with this stand in relationship to the South island longfin population.

I want the South Island Longfin quota for 2016 to be reduced to zero tonnes and I want this zero tonne quota to be maintained indefinitely (forever). I do not believe that commercial fishing of longfin eels is either ethical or sustainable and measures must be taken now to protect the species.

~~Yours sincerely,~~

~~Alexander McLellan s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 235 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Alison Valentine s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 8:45 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin eel fishing~~

~~I am very concerned that the numbers of longfin eel are getting very low, and yet they are still being fished and exported.~~

We should not be allowing any fishing of the longfin eels from their natural habitats. Fishers are exploiting a wild and diminishing population which is not a sustainable business model and should not be allowed to continue.

~~Submitted by Alison Valentine s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android~~

~~1 236 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Alison Ballance s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 8:36 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries~~

~~TO: [email protected]~~

~~Submission on:~~

~~Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 1116 & SFE 11-16) in 2016~~

~~MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/15~~

~~My submission relates to the South Island longfin eel fishery.~~

~~I am a zoologist by training, and an environmental and science writer and broadcaster with a good overview of New Zealand ecology and natural history.~~

I have been concerned for a long-time that we have an unsustainable fishery of a long-lived endangered species, the longfin eel, and I am pleased to see its management in the South Island being separated out from the shortfin eel.

I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. In 2013 she wrote that: “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is the problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

As MPI notes in the discussion paper fishing is not the only factor causing the worrying decline in longfin eel numbers: “Environmental changes, habitat modification and mortality from mechanical clearance of drainage channels, hydro-electric turbines and flood control pumping are also likely to affect the abundance of eels.

This is even more reason why we should stop the commercial harvest of longfin eels in all areas of the South Island for at least 20 years – it is difficult to mitigate the environmental factors but we can certainly remove the added risk of fishing, especially given some of the catch is apparently used in low value products such as pet food.

I don’t believe that the traditional methods of calculating TAC under the QMS are a good fit for a very long-lived species that only breeds once, at the end of its life. We simply do not have enough information at the moment, which is why I think we should have a moratorium that is in place for at least 20 years.

~~Thank you for the opportunity to submit.~~

~~Alison Ballance s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 237 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Ami Coughlan s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 2:57 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: New Zealand Longfin Eel Quota~~

~~Setting of the quota of longfin eel in the South Island of New Zealand~~

~~Good afternoon~~

My name is Ami Coughlan, and I am an Environmental Science student at Massey University. It has been bought to my attention that the quota for longfin eels in the South Island is being discussed. I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environments recommendation of April 2013 for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. To specify, I would request a complete halt to all harvesting and fishing of these eels.

The long life span of these animals (up to 100 years) and the fact that the females only breed once in their lives and then die, mean that this eel is highly vulnerable to complete species collapse. Their habitat has already been degraded in many areas due to damming of waterways and pollutants in rivers and streams, to harvest these fish at all in what remaining spaces they have left is potentially asking to be held responsible for their extinction. I therefore request that you carefully assess the evidence presented by the experts on the poor shape of this endangered animal, and vote for a complete and total moratorium on the harvesting of longfin eels in the South Island.

~~Thank you for your time. Ami Coughlan~~

~~1 238 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Andy Dennis s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 11:48 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on quotas for long-finned and short-finned eels~~

~~11th July 2016. s 9(2)(a)~~

~~To Ministry of Primary Industry.~~

~~Submission on proposals for revising quotas om short-finned and long-finned eels.~~

My name is Dr Andrew Ian Dennis. I have a long history on involvement in conservation issues in New Zealand and among other things have wriiten handbooks for four New Zealand national parks, a guide-book to the World Heritage Highway through South Westland and across the Haast Pass. and have long been closely associated with both Forest and Bird and FMC. I am currently on the Molesworth Steering Committee and in June this year was named as a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for Services to Conservation.

~~My submission on these issues is very simple and can thus be state very briefly. It is:~~

1. For more than 40 years I have believed there is no good reason to distinguish our two unique species of native eels from other unique indigenous animals (like the kiwi, kakapo, kokako, kereru, tuatara, Powelliphanta land snails, lizards and skinks a etc) in the context of our efforts to ensure their long- term preservation and survival. This has become increasingly important over recent years as both species (and their key habitats) have become increasingly threatened.

2. Both short-finned and long-finned eels and their most important habitats need to be given the same level of FULL PROTECTION as has been accorded in our mostly very god conservation legislation to our other unique indigenous animals (like those lusted above).

~~3. The issuing of any ongoing quota for either species of New Zealand indigenous eels must therefore CEASE forthwith.~~

I realise there is likely to be a case made for some ongoing cultural harvest under the Treaty of Waitangi but outside of this all commercial and receeational harvesting of eels must be ended as soon as possible - as indeed should have been done several decades ago when New Zealand first passed legislation to protect a wide range of indigenous and often increasingly threatened native plants and animals.

~~Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. Should any oral hearings be subsequently held on this issue I would like to be given the opportunity to speak to this submission.~~

~~Yours sincerely,~~

~~Andrew Dennis (Dr), s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~1 239 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Andrew Leachman s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2016 7:37 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Eel TAC's~~

We have made mistakes in the past when using FL data to indicate stock sustainability. Consider the ORH TAC of the early 90's. I believe your basic thinking on eel harvesting is erroneous and I would suggest you consult with Dr. Peter Todd. A.Leachman ex Master of GRV James Cook and MAF fisheries research vessel Tangaroa. Sent from my iPhone

~~1 240 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Andy Lewis s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 8:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission in support of protecting the Longfin Eel~~

~~Dear sir,~~

~~My name is Andrew Lewis, I am a person who is concerned about the NZ environment and specifically the setting of quota for longfin eels in the South Island.~~

I strongly support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a total moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. Allowing the harvest to continue, even with a reduced quota, is accepting the eventual extinction of this species. Any native species in serious decline and under threat of extinction such as the longfin eel shouldn’t be harvested at all.

~~Please ratify this moratorium.~~

~~Your sincerely,~~

~~Andrew Lewis s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 241 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Angela Clifford s 9(2)(a) Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 10:04 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eel quota~~

~~There should not be a commercial quota for long fin eels.~~

~~1 242 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Anna Barnett s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 6:54 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission Re: Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries in 2016~~

~~Anna Barnett s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~To whom it may concern,~~

~~My name is Anna Barnett. As a New Zealander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilisation or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing.

Longfin eels are a single national population and must be managed as such. At the end of their lives, they migrate to distant communal breeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean, where they spawn and die. It is meaningless to set quotas in severely overfished regions to zero, while continuing to harvest eels in other regions, as MPI has proposed. The overfished regions can only be restocked by the offspring of eels from other regions. Continued harvest of eels in those other regions means that the number of elvers will continue to decline, since every eel that is harvested is an eel that will never reproduce.

The commercial harvest of any declining native species is completely unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century.

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Yours sincerely,~~

~~1 243 Anna Barnett~~

~~2 244 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Anna Crowe s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 2:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on current review of annual quota for the South Island commercial eel fishery~~

~~Submission on current review of annual quota for the South Island commercial eel fishery.~~

~~My name is Anna Crowe – I am a freshwater scientist, currently working as an environmental educator in Marlborough, New Zealand.~~

~~I submit that the Total Allowable Catch for longfin eels throughout the South Island should be set at zero.~~

I spend much of my time teaching others about our endemic, threatened, biologically-unique and remarkable longfin eels, and they are unanimously shocked when they find out that not only is this species not protected by law, but it is, in fact, commercially fished.

I believe that continued commercial exploitation of longfin eels places the entire species at an unacceptably high risk, due to the life-history traits (extreme longevity and semelparity), significant uncertainty around biology and exploitation limits (lack of knowledge regarding population size, spawning, and effects of climate change on recruitment; recruitment variability and lifespan means trends are hard to detect; panmictism – allee effect and likelihood of population collapse), and significant additional pressures, such as habitat loss, habitat degradation and migration barriers.

I also think that we need to look beyond the longfin eels physical appearance (not perceived to be as cute and cuddly as other species with the same conservation status, for example the Great Spotted Kiwi and the New Zealand Falcon), and historic lack of high-regard (for example, encouragement for the general public to catch and slaughter longfin eels due to their tendency, as predators, to eat young trout and ducklings), and to consider longfin eels’ intrinsic value as endemic and ecological keystone species.

I agree with Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who said, in April 2013*: “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

~~Thank you for your consideration on this important matter.~~

~~Yours sincerely,~~

~~Anna Crowe M.Sc. (Hons).~~

*Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. April 2013. On a Pathway to Extinction? An investigation into the status and management of the longfin eel. Wellington, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

~~1 245 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Dear Freshwater Protection submission committee,~~

~~Re: 2016/15, Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longﬁn and Shortﬁn Eel Fisheries (LFE 11–16 & SFE 11–16)~~

I am an unemployed artist and teacher. And of course as a Stewart Islander, and a New Zealander, I’m a stakeholder in the health of South Island freshwater ecosystems, including longfins. My opinion, speaking as an artist and educator, is this: 1 The South Island longfin quota for 2016 should be reduced to zero (0) tonnes, and maintained thus for 15 years, during which longfin populations will be monitored to determine if they are in fact recovering. 2 This research programme should be totally or substantially funded not by the New Zealand taxpayer, but by the commercial longfin industry. If the commercial eel industry is not willing to help determine if longfin stocks can be sustainably harvested, they should no longer be allowed the privilege of taking and exporting this publicly-owned resource. Other extractive industries are responsible for determining the environmental impact of their activities: the eel fishery should be no exception. 3 Recreational and traditional quota should remain unchanged if not reduced to a nominal level, but a consultation and education programme should begin with iwi to give each region the option of setting traditional harvest levels to 0 – effectively, a rahui – for a similar period, and working with ecologists to monitor the health and population levels of their local longfin stocks. Quite apart from the scientific arguments, though, about methods for assessing stock levels, I would like to propose another reason why the South Island longfin quota be set to zero.

~~It is abhorrent to harvest such adorable creatures. They deserve the same protection as our Kiwi, Weka, and Kereru.~~

~~I vote for zero quota for our endemic longﬁn eel(Anguilla dieffenbachii).~~

~~246 Please accept this letter to the process and make certain plenty of our freshwater eels are around for future generations to enjoy.~~

~~Thanks for accepting this submission, Annie Mein~~

~~247 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Annie Spurdle s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 6:04 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eels~~

Hello I am a teacher living on Waiheke Island, I own my own property which includes a pond which provides a haven for wildlife. I would like to ask that the long fin eel, a seemingly prehistoric creature receive enhanced rights to protection, these creatures are slow to mature and reproduce, their survival depends on the elders of the species to attain reproductive potential and migrate to the great ocean trench near Tonga. The regulations need to be reviewed permitting the collection of only juveniles allowing the remaining mature eels to reach their potential, reproduce and re populate the waterways with elvers. Please restrict the export of endangered native species! Annie Spurdle s 9(2)(a)

~~1 248 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Beth Reille s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 2 July 2016 9:47 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission~~

~~1 249 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Bill Schoffelmeer s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 8:04 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin Eel~~

~~Bill Schofflmeer s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~As a South Islander I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~1 250 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Brendon Bullen s 9(2)(a) Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 9:39 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: South Island eel quota~~

~~My name is Brendon Bullen and I am submitting on the annual quotas for the South Island commercial eel fishery.~~

I believe that it is irresponsible for NZ to have a quota at all for a species that is "chronically threatened in gradual decline" as classified by DOC. Eels already have enough population pressures from NZ's rapidly declining waterway health, without adding an export market on top of this. We do not have an export market for kereru and kiwi, and I do not understand why tuna are treated differently just because they are an aquatic animal.

~~There should not be a commercial industry for one of NZ's threatened species that is in decline.~~

~~Yours sincerely Brendon Bullen s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 251 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Brent Barrett s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 6:24 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin Eel Submission~~

~~Brent Barrett, s 9(2)(a)~~

~~10 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

I've lived in Palmerston North since 2000 and have a keen interest in nature and the value it offers in terms of well-being and economics. I am also a regular visitor to the South Island for business and tourism purposes. As such, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Brent Barrett~~

~~1 252 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Briar Allen s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 6:27 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin Eels~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~Any native species in serious decline and under threat of extinction shouldn’t be harvested at all.~~

~~Look after our Kaitiaki!~~

~~Briar Allen s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 253 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Bridget Armstrong s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 4:38 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.

~~Bridget Armstrong s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~Hi, I am Bridget Armstrong. As a South Islander I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Bridget Armstrong.~~

~~1 254 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Cara Hansen s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: FMSUBMISSION~~

~~Cara Hansen~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~Kia ora, My name is Cara, As a concerned citizen of New Zealand, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Cara Hansen~~

~~1 255 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Caroline Edwards s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:12 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: longfin eels~~

~~Caroline Edwards s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~[INTRODUCE YOURSELF]. As a [NEW ZEALANDER, SOUTH ISLANDER, TANGATA WHENUA] I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~1 256 We love these eels, we feed them by hand and they are special to us. Please protect them.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Caroline Edwards~~

~~2 257 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Caroline Wells s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 9:06 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission - Longfin Eel Quota - South Island~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

I am writing as a concerned New Zealand citizen. As a kid, we line caught eels in our local creek. I'd like my kids to be able to do the same. Over fishing of this species (and all others) is doing our future generations a disservice.

~~Please help our species to survive us.~~

~~Caroline Wells s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 258 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Charlotte Murphy s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 2:13 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries~~

~~Charlotte Murphy s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~As a South Islander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Charlotte Murphy 1 259 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Charlotte Scott s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 5:01 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Setting the fishing quota of long fin eels~~

~~Submission on setting the fishing quota of longfin eels in the South Island.~~

~~My name is Charlotte Scott s 9(2)(a) .~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

I believe that allowing the harvesting of longfin eels to continue puts the species at extreme risk of extinction. New Zealand has unique and wonderful flora and fauna and longfin eels are a part of our delicate ecosystem. Eels only breed once, at the very end of their lifecycle so any eel caught is an eel that doesn’t get to breed and replenish our dwindling stocks. Any native species that is in serious decline should not be harvested at all.

I want my children and my children’s children to be able to experience the magic of New Zealand and included in that is watching the mysterious longfin eel lurking in our creeks and rivers. So with that desire in mind, I state that any native species that is in serious decline should not be harvested at all.

~~With regards,~~

~~Charlotte Scott s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 260 Chisholm Associates~~

~~67 Selwyn Street, Leeston, Canterbury 7632 Ph (027) 221-4739 e-mail: [email protected]~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management, Ministry for Primary Industries, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140. 7th July 2016~~

~~Submission on:~~

~~Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016. MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/15~~

~~This submission is made on behalf of W. P. (Bill) Chisholm. The address for service is 67 Selwyn Street, Leeston 7632; Ph (027) 2214739; email [email protected]~~

~~If a hearing is to be held, I would like to be heard in support of this submission.~~

~~1. Discussion Paper’s calculation of new TACC’s~~

The Discussion Paper appears to have made an error in calculating the new Total Allowable Catches. The new commercial, recreational and customary landings are based on reported commercial catches only. The “highest catch” and “average catch” figures do not take into account the number of eels which were harvested by customary and recreational fishers. They are based on the commercial harvest only. While accurate figures for the customary and recreational harvest are not available, it can be assumed that it is significant, given that 7 new freshwater mataitai have been gazetted in the South Island in the last 5 years, on top of the existing 2 mataitai.

This error equates to an automatic 22% reduction in TACC’s for all new SFE and LFE areas. It is not acceptable to disadvantage commercial fishermen for being the only harvesters who provide accurate catch information, and base the total harvest on the commercial catch alone.

It is suggested that this error be rectified by the proposed new TAC’s becoming the proposed new TACC’s, as they are based solely on the commercial catch. An additional allocation for recreational and customary can then be calculated from this. I have revised the proposed TACC’s, based on this premise. The new (revised) TACC’s for the “highest catch” options in Areas 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 are presented below. For SFE13, Option 2 is included, and for LFE13 a TACC of zero is included, as longfin eels are not taken from Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere.

~~Table 1: Comparison between Total Allowable Commercial Catches proposed by the MPI Discussion Paper (Proposed TACC), and the Revised TACC~~

~~261 Area Proposed TACC Revised TACC Shortfin eel 11 19 24.87 12 20 26.1 13 122 134.2 14 10 13.57 15 29 37.42 16 30 38.69 Total 230 274.85~~

~~Longfin eel 11 16 21.1 12 23 29.49 13 0 0 14 22 28.6 15 89 114.1 16 34 43.72 Total 184 237.01~~

It should be noted that only the “highest catch” scenario is suitable for shortfin and longfin eels in each area, as this negates the artificial effect of quota “shelving”, which is extensively practiced in the South Island, especially by iwi and runanga. The “average catch” figures are corrupted by this shelving, and hence do not provide accurate information on real catch rates.

~~2. Discussion Paper’s errors in fact~~

It is not correct that “ ..longfin eels are more biologically vulnerable than shortfin eels.” Indeed, the opposite is the case. Shortfin eels are considerably more biologically vulnerable that longfin eels, because of the habitats they occupy. Longfin eels tend to live in upstream, more remote areas, which are less vulnerable to human influences (including harvest) than the lowland areas frequented by shortfin eels (Beentjes et al 20161). This error of fact is repeated throughout the Discussion Paper, provides much of the basis for MPI’s preferred lower TACC’s for LFE.

While longfin populations have been severely impacted by hydro dams in the past, the construction of new hydro dams is now not common, and not within the ambit of this Discussion Paper or the Fisheries Act. Other measures outside the Fisheries Act are available to address the impacts of hydro dams on longfin populations.

The Discussion Paper continually refers to the Minister of Fisheries’ contention that longfin eel abundance needs to be increased. There is no information supplied which demonstrates that this is necessary to maintain sustainability of the longfin fishery. There is also no information provided which demonstrates that the new TACC’s would have the effect of “increasing longfin abundance”. It is therefore a bald statement providing an outcome with no legislative or scientific merit. All subsequent arguments based on this bald objective of “increasing longfin abundance” should therefore be disregarded.

262 The Discussion Paper refers to “stock assessments” of SFE and LFE, calculated from CPUE trends. “Hard” and “soft” limits are then provided, calculated from these same trends. This is scientifically unsound. There is no valid stock assessment available for South Island eels and the Discussion Paper is mendacious to state that it is. Similarly, “hard” and “soft” limits are determined through guesswork only.

The argument is made by the Discussion Paper that “stock assessments” and “hard” and “soft” limits are based on “best available information (i.e. CPUE). While CPUE is an important part of fisheries management, the reality is that the Discussion Paper does not base its conclusions on the best available information. For LFE, the Discussion Paper ignores the best available information which is Beentjes et al (2016)1, which found that 58% of total LFE habitat has never been commercially fished, and ~70% of their habitat in the South Island remains unfished. This means that the “best available information” (Beentjes et al 20161) demonstrates that the 40% B0 target is already met for LFE in the whole South Island. Accordingly, there is no legislative or scientific basis or merit for “increasing longfin abundance” in the South Island.

~~3. Preferences~~

~~The preferred options (assuming the errors are corrected), are:~~

 SFE 11 – Option 2  SFE 12 – Option 2  SFE 14 – Option 2  SFE 15 – Option 2  SFE 16 – Option 2 All of these shortfin areas need to have the “highest catch” option, because the “highest catch” is taken during wet summers when the fish can be caught. Without the ability to take these fish during floods events, the fishery will be too inefficient to remain profitable. There is no evidence that the shortfin fishery cannot sustain the “highest catch” option. CPUE trends are stable or increasing in all these areas. It should be noted that the highest catch will not be taken in all summers, only the wettest summers.

 LFE 11 – Option 3  LFE 12 – Option 3  LFE 14 – Option 3 All of these longfin areas need to have the “highest catch” option, because the current catch is artificially held low by the current 4 tonne minimum ACE holding requirement. This forces those with less than 4 T to shelve their leftover ACE. In addition, most iwi-held ACE in these areas is shelved. This alone equates to an (at least) artificial 20% reduction in the commercial catch. These two factors are not considered by the Discussion Paper and do not feature in the calculations of “average” and “highest” catch.

The Discussion Paper incorrectly assumes that these artificially low catch rates are evidence of a stressed fishery. The Discussion Paper also assumes that the longfin CPUE (which has remained stable in all three areas) cannot be relied upon because there isn’t enough data. It is not correct to assume that CPUE data is not good

263 enough to inform TAC-setting in Areas 11, 12 and 14. These data are part of the “best available information” and should be considered along with other data such as elver recruitment information and Beentjes et al (2016)1.

~~ LFE 15 – Option 3  LFE 16 – Option 2 These options are the “highest catch” options. The “highest catch” options are justified, as CPUE remains stable for these two fisheries.~~

 SFE 13 – Option 2 CPUE has remained high (probably at saturation levels) for at least the last four years, despite changes to the lake mouth-opening regime and the male migrant fishery. Also, B0 (calculated by CPUE) is nearly double the 40% target. CPUE does not provide definitive stock assessment information, but the sustained increase in catch rates points towards a TACC increase to maintain sustainable utilisation. Therefore, a conservative TACC increase of only 10% for this fishery, at this stage, is warranted.

It should be noted that altering TACC’s on the basis of CPUE trends is a two-way street. The Discussion Paper considers a small 10% TACC increase is warranted for SFE 13, where CPUE has trebled and B0 is nearly double the 40% target. However, the Discussion Paper also considers large TACC reductions for LFE in all areas, where CPUE trends and Beentjes et al (2016)1 demonstrate that no LFE TACC reductions are warranted at all. Consistency in decision-making is a very important factor in fisheries management. The Discussion Paper entirely lacks such consistency.

~~ LFE 13 – Option 1 There is no commercial longfin fishery in Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere and therefore Option 1 (nominal catch only) is suitable.~~

~~4. Other recommendation~~

The proposed 2 tonne minimum holding needs to be removed, and there should be no minimum holding (as occurs in the North Island for eels). This is necessary because of the short catching season (November to April). It would be too difficult to juggle ACE in this short time period to make up the 2 T minimum, when so little is available under the new settings. Catching shortfins during floods would also be difficult if 2 tonnes of ACE was needed in a hurry.

~~Yours faithfully~~

~~CHISHOLM ASSOCIATES~~

~~1. Beentjes, M.P.; Sykes, J.; Crow, S. (2016). GIS mapping of the longfin eel commercial fishery throughout New Zealand, and estimates of longfin habitat and~~

~~264 proportion fished. Draft New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report held by Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington.~~

~~265 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Chris Bone s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 12:09 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Eels~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~-- Chris Bone~~

~~Managing Director, OceansWatch www.oceanswatch.org s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 266 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Chris H. - Hippo s 9(2)(a) Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 12:23 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Review of management for longfin eels submission~~

~~Hello,~~

I'd like to make a submission with regards to this document: file:///C:/Users/christianh/Downloads/2016-15-Review-of-Management-Controls-for-the-South-Island- Longfin-and-Shortfin-Eel-Fisheries%20(1).pdf

I'd like to refute a few claims, though I do not have time to read the entire document I will just mention what I have time for: "The longfin population has stabilized or increased in recent years" I disagree with this statement and don't see how MPI could monitor this, do MPI use depopulated waterways that have already been depleted by fishing with their studies? I doubt it. Catch data shows the amount of eels caught, by weight, not length of the eels. Recording the amount of fully grown eels is the only way of getting an accurate measurement of how stable our eel population is.

I'm by no means an eel expert, but considering the longfin is endemic, threatened and declining (so says most online sources I can find), I find it disgusting that we continue to commercially fish these creatures that can live for over 100 years!!!! They're the true natives of NZ, NOT US, they have lived here for over millions of years, we should have utmost respect for them and personally I find it despicable that this is even up for debate. Shame on you New Zealand.

~~Thank you,~~

~~Hippo Unicycles Chris Huriwai Team Manager e-mail: s 9(2)(a) web: www.hippounicycles.com social: facebook.com/hippounicycles~~

~~1 267 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Chris McLeod s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries~~

~~Chris McLeod s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~As a born and bred NZer, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Chris McLeod~~

~~1 268 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: David and Chris Henderson s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 5:12 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: submission regarding a moratorium on harvesting long-fin eels~~

~~Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this submission process.~~

~~My name is Christine Ellen Henderson. My address is s 9(2)(a) My submission is as follows:~~

I support unconditionally the April 2008 statement by the Parliamentary Commissoner for the Environment when she said that: "It is critical that we stop fishing long-fin eels. It is not just fishing that is the problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature."

~~In my life-time I have seen the reduction in numbers of eels, by loss of habitat, damming of rivers for hydro- electricity and over-fishing.~~

At this stage of our history it is untenable to continue a practice that has brought long-fin eels to the brink of extinction. We cannot criticise others who exploit the natural world to the brink of extinction unless we practice what we preach.

As a member of the Waiau River Working party endeavouring to restore the lower Waiau river which has had it's average flow reduced from 525 cumecs to between 14 and 16 cumecs in the name of the Bluff smelter I am aware of the need to physically transport eels above the Mararoa Dam to ensure the survival of a proportion of them, but that is not sustainable over the long term. Nor is trapping them for sale. Setting any quota for a threatened species is a contradiction in terms, and has no place in a civilised society. We must stop harvesting long-fin eels.

~~I wish to speak to my submission. Mrs Chris Henderson MNZM~~

~~1 269 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Chris McCausland s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 3:38 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Native long fin eel~~

~~Dear NZ Govt~~

~~I am writing as I am concerned about the survival of the NZ long fin eel species. My understanding is this native species is under threat of extinction, but it is still legal to harvest it.~~

As a citizen of this country I believe we should absolutely be protecting all out native flora and fauna, for now and for future generations. It is our responsibility to be guardians of the environment for our children and grandchildren

~~With regards to the long fin eel, I would suggest that at a minimum there should be a MORATORIUM ON HARVESTING long fin eels. Ideally there should be a COMPLETE BAN ON HARVESTING of this species.~~

~~Thank you for considering this submission~~

~~Kind regards~~

~~Christine McCausland s 9(2)(a)~~

~~It can be as simple as saying that you support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a mum on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~Or you could talk about how any native species in serious decline and under threat of extinction shouldn’t be harvested at all.~~

~~1 270 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Christopher s 9(2)(a) > Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 5:04 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Save the Eels~~

My name is Christopher Strayer, I'm a citizen of the United States, and I support Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. Eels are one of the most fascinating creatures on the planet, as well as being a living dinosaur, but they wouldn't last much longer if we don't do something about their rapidly decreasing numbers. Since eels only breed once in their long lives there is little to no use in placing restrictions on fishing for them. That's why fishing for them shouldn't be allowed at all. But none of this really matters because the simple truth is that you shouldn't drive a species into extinction. Thank you for reading and I hope you make the right call.

~~1 271 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: conor houghton s 9(2)(a) Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 10:14 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eels quota~~

Long fin eel populations in New Zealand have been depleted and are not recovering. over harvesting to meet quota is a way to drive our native freshwater species to near extinction. As a aspiring freshwater biologist at University of Canterbury I often learn about how our native species, not only eels but also fish populations are depleting. If we want a future for our fish we need to do it sustainably and not to think about the economy as much as once our resources dry up we won't have anything to show for it. The quota should be decreased to allow populations to reestablish and become abundant everywhere.

~~Conor Houghton~~

~~1 272 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Damian Stewart s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 10:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Quota for longfin eels in the South Island~~

~~Good morning/afternoon,~~

~~I'm a concerned NZ citizen living overseas.~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~If this is not feasible, and if exceptions are to be made for cultural purposes, the quota set should be significantly lower than the average yearly catch.~~

~~This will ensure that this endemic species doesn't disappear from our waterways.~~

~~Thank you, Damian Stewart -- Sent from mobile~~

~~1 273 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Darelle Martin s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 12:45 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission - Review of Deemed Value Rates for Selected Stocks in 2016 MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/17~~

~~I am submitting on the Review of Deemed Value Rates for Selected Stocks in 2016 MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/17.~~

~~My name is Darelle Martin s 9(2)(a) .~~

~~Submission: I support the setting of lower limits for TACs of LFEs 11-16 in the South Island, however I oppose the level at which they have been set.~~

Reason: The life history of this species makes it significantly vulnerable to exploitation, with their long lifespans and single breeding off-shore (i.e. not even in the habitat in which they would be harvested). They cannot be farmed. There remains a lack of knowledge on their biology and the limits of exploitation. There is limited data on population size, spawning is basically totally unknown, and there may be effects from climate change. Their lifespan makes trends difficult to detect. There are significant additional pressures to fishing, such as habitat loss and degradation, and barriers to migration. All of the above factors are significant enough by themselves, let alone together, to warrant a very precautionary approach to management.

Regarding the commercial fishery, this is of very low value and contributes only around 30 jobs, with no capacity for expansion or development due to all of the aforementioned factors already limiting stocks. By contrast there is a high cultural value to Maori of New Zealand for customary extraction, which is limited by the stocks that are commercially fished. Aside from extractive uses, the species has intrinsic value, and is a keystone species comparable to other such as kiwi, of which some species are equally at risk of extinction but unlike the eel are not commercially harvested. All of these factors support that the LFE is a species for which extractive commercial use should be of low to no priority.

~~Relief sought: TACs for LFE 11-16 should be set at zero. This is the only option for the sustainability of the species.~~

~~Thank you for your time.~~

~~Darelle Martin~~

~~1 274 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Mazzola Jewellery And Gallery s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 6:04 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: South Island Long Fin Eel submission Attachments: long fin eel MPI submission.doc~~

~~To Whom It May Concern~~

~~I am emailing this submission to say that I don't think the long fin eel should be commercially fished in the South Island or anywhere in New Zealand.~~

As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April, 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing long fin eels. It is not just fishing that is the problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

This a uniquely New Zealand fish with a unique life cycle that sees it only spawn once, at the very end of its life, somewhere in the Pacific. A critical number of these eels have to reach the spawning area every year for the life cycle of the species to continue. If they don't, we will see a collapse in numbers of eels with no possibility of rejuvenating the species.

A reduced quota based system won't protect the species because it is not being reached any way, and fishermen are simply moving from one stream to another to fish out all the stock. A quote system that varies from one region to another won't work either as population increases in one region are too easily cancelled out by continued fishing in another region.

Similarly, a size limit will have no effect because the fish only spawns once at the end of its life. This means that size limits for eels are almost meaningless, and that modelling a sustainable harvest size is impossible.

~~The only option for protecting this special species is to end all commercial fishing of the long fin eel.~~

~~Yours sincerely~~

~~David Famularo s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 275 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: ellechim s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 9:55 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: (no subject) please protect these longfin eels !!! try try try thank you~~

~~1 276 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Emily Bailey s 9(2)(a) Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 2:19 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: submission on tuna~~

~~Kia ora koutou,~~

My name is Emily Tuhi-Ao Bailey. I live in Taranaki and am of Taranaki, Te Atiawa, Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Maru descent. I am currently in Europe where it is 4:07pm on July 11th so sorry for my late submission.

~~I am an ecologist and work in Maori communities and schools on river protection and waste reduction.~~

I want to see a moratorium on all commercial tuna fishing in Aotearoa/NZ initiated and enforced, this being immediate for the endangered longfin tuna. I support continued fishing of shortfin tuna only by traditional Maori communities and any families or individuals to feed themselves or guests - not for sale or trade. Both these freshwater fish are in serious trouble and stopping commercial fishing, while it may have harsh short- term effects on commercial fishers, will help ensure the fishery for future generations. It is abhorrent that this country is allowing an endangered species to be sold and fed to pets overseas.

~~I would like to speak to my submission if there is an opportunity. I will be back in Aotearoa in late August.~~

~~Thank you, Emily Bailey s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 277 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: [email protected] on behalf of quister s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 4:14 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: management controls for longfin/shortfin eel submission~~

~~Erik Winquist s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~Hello, my name is Erik Winquist. As a New Zealander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013, “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

Longfin eels are very slow growing, long-lived and spawn only once at the end of their lives, so their numbers will not increase quickly after a zero quota is established. The zero quota must be maintained for at least twenty years before any reliable trends will become apparent. The commercial harvest of any declining native species is completely unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century.

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Sincerely, Erik Winquist~~

~~1 278 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: FD Mende s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 7:41 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin Eels~~

~~To Whom It May Concern,~~

~~I am a NZ citizen s 9(2)(a) . I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~Regards, Faine Mende~~

~~1 279 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: fiona thomson s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 5:32 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission re: the setting of the quota of longfin eels in the South Island~~

~~Hi, my name is Fiona Thomson and I am a New Zealander.~~

~~I am writing to express my opinion on the setting of the quota of longfin eels in the South Island. It is my submission that there be a total moratorium on longfin eel harvesting~~

I am currently very concerned for the long term welfare of New Zealand’s endemic Longfin eel species. These ‘tuna’ are an amazing creature and are a cultural icon to all New Zealanders, and specifically to Maori - and as such they deserve our protection – and do not deserve to be harvested to extinction – especially when it is known to be done for pet food. (Not to mention the species innate ‘right to survive’).

Extinction is currently on the cards for the longfin eel species due to overharvesting and their long lifecycles that inhibit reproduction until the females are decades old. As such I would like to see a total moratorium on longfin eel harvesting – to try now to avoid extinction.

~~Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.~~

~~Kind regards Fiona Thomson s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 280 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: cokerzclan s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:26 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Save our Eels!~~

~~Gary Coker s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~As a New Zealander, conservationist, and lover of our amazing outdoors, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Gary Coker Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.~~

~~1 281 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Glennis Moriarty s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 4:33 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission - Eels~~

~~Glennis Moriarty s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~As a fourth-generation New Zealander and a trained scientist and teacher, I am concerned about the health of our freshwater ecosystems, including the future of the longfin eel.~~

There should be no commercial quotas for longfin eels, because their numbers are falling so rapidly that stopping fishing for these eels is the only way to reverse the decline. Longfin eels are slow growing, long-lived and spawn only once, at the end of their lives, so their numbers will not increase quickly even when a zero quota is in place. That must be maintained for at least twenty years before any reliable trends are seen.

It is unethical to harvest any declining native species. This is something that should not be looked at from a commercial point of view - even if these fish do form part of an export fishery. Our unique ecosystems are more previous than gold.

~~Yours sincerely Glennis Moriarty~~

~~1 282 Sonja Hempel~~

From: G Signal s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:34 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries

~~Greg Signal s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016. As a New Zealander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel. The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilisation or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing. Longfin eels are a single national population and must be managed as such. At the end of their lives, they migrate to distant communal breeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean, where they spawn and die. It is meaningless to set quotas in severely overfished regions to zero, while continuing to harvest eels in other regions, as MPI has proposed. The overfished regions can only be restocked by the offspring of eels from other regions. Continued harvest of eels in those other regions means that the number of elvers will continue to decline, since every eel that is harvested is an eel that will never reproduce. Longfin eels are very slow growing, long-lived and spawn only once at the end of their lives, so their numbers will not increase quickly after a zero quota is established. The zero quota must be maintained for at least twenty years before any reliable trends will become apparent. The commercial harvest of any declining native species is completely unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century. Thank you for considering my submission. Greg Signal

~~1 283 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Greg Ball s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 4:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: New Zealand Longfin Eel fishery~~

~~Gregory Ball s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

As a New Zealander and a parent I have a strong interest in the preservation of our unique organisms and ecosystems. I have recently learned about the amazing life cycle of our Longfin Eel and their vulnerability to fishing.

My understanding is that the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~1 284 Gregory Ball~~

~~-- Greg Ball s 9(2)(a)~~

~~2 285 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Strewe & Buchanan s 9(2)(a) Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 2:42 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long Fin Eels Submission~~

~~To Ministry for Primary Industries~~

Long fin eels are unique to New Zealand they are the biggest and longest lived of any eel. Very few long fin eels are reaching breeding age which means the population is facing collapse. The reduced numbers are caused by excessive commercial exploitation, habitat loss & declining water quality. The only option is the cessation of commercial fishing of eels before it is too late because once lost that is the end... and we in New Zealand have lost an awful lot already due to our greed & failure to learn from past mistakes.

~~Yours sincerely Helga Strewe s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 286 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: I Ellis s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 12:29 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission: Longfin Eel~~

~~8 July 2016~~

~~To Whom it may concern.~~

I am writing this submission in support of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. The population of this endemic species is declining (1), and I find it incredible that it is still being commercially fished.

1. Goodman, J.M.; Dunn, N.R.; Ravenscroft, P.J.; Allibone, R.M.; Boubee, J.A.T.; David, B.O.; Griffiths, M.; Ling, N.; Hitchmough, R.A; Rolfe, J.R. (2014). "Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2013".

~~Yours Sincerely~~

~~Ian Ellis~~

~~s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 287 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Isaac Ahn s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 6:10 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Eels~~

~~I support the call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. No species should be driven to extinction, especially not by us humans who have enough death and destruction on our hands~~

~~1 288 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Miles_Fr om_Home s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 12:04 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long Fin Eel~~

~~Hello, my name is Jacob Pater.~~

~~I do not think the Longfin Eel should be harvested at all as they are in decline.~~

~~I support the parliamentary commissioner for the environments call for a moratorium on harvesting Longfin Eels.~~

~~At the very least the quota for annual catches should be low enough for the species to thrive and should be low in all areas.~~

~~Thank you for your time.~~

~~Regards,~~

~~Jacob Pater~~

~~1 289 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~290 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Jaspur Mc Donald s 9(2)(a) Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2016 10:08 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Stop comercial longfin eeling~~

Hello my name is jaspur and im from canterbury,im submiting my oppinion on the comercial fishing of long fin eels,i beleive we need to stop this at ounce as these guys are going to be wiped out. their reproduction cycle is very slow and there is not alot knowen on how and when they migrate to spawn. Eels are part of our nz culture and we need to look after them and not exploit them for comercial gain,please stop this comercial practice. Your sincerley Jaspur M

~~1 291 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: s 9(2)(a) Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 7:50 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Commercial Quotas for Longfin Eels in the South Island~~

~~TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN~~

I wish to submit my feelings on the commercial quota for longfin eels in the South Island currently being reviewed. My name is Jean Hayward and I live in Murchison and work in St Arnaud on the edge of Lake Rotoiti in South Island. The longfin eels in our Lake are considered very special and it is prohibited to fish for them here. So I wonder why commercial fishers are allowed to take them out of the Buller River once the eels have left the lake into that river on the start of their long journey to the Pacific Ocean breeding grounds. Eels don’t breed until they have left these shores, so every eel that is caught has not had a chance to do this. How can commercial fishing of them be sustainable? They need to be fully protected.

This country is under threat of losing huge numbers of its unique native species through urbanisation, pollution and over-commercialism. Financial gain seems to be all that counts. Please ban commercial fishing of these precious creatures.

~~Thank you.~~

~~Jean Hayward Murchison/St Arnaud~~

~~1 292 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Jeni Ashton s 9(2)(a) Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 6:55 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eels~~

I would like it noted that I believe there should be a moratorium on commercial fishing of the endangered South Island long finned eel. All endangered species should be protected from commercial gain. Kind regards Jennifer Ashton

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~1 293 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Jenny Neale s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 9:42 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: submission~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~I submit that TACs should be set at zero for LFE 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16~~

~~1 294 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Jeremy Stead s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 9:24 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Stop fishing for Eels~~

~~Jeremy Stead s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016. Hi my names Jeremy Stead. As a [NEW ZEALANDER, SOUTH ISLANDER, TANGATA WHENUA] I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel. The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilisation or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing. Longfin eels are a single national population and must be managed as such. At the end of their lives, they migrate to distant communal breeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean, where they spawn and die. It is meaningless to set quotas in severely overfished regions to zero, while continuing to harvest eels in other regions, as MPI has proposed. The overfished regions can only be restocked by the offspring of eels from other regions. Continued harvest of eels in those other regions means that the number of elvers will continue to decline, since every eel that is harvested is an eel that will never reproduce. Longfin eels are very slow growing, long-lived and spawn only once at the end of their lives, so their numbers will not increase quickly after a zero quota is established. The zero quota must be maintained for at least twenty years before any reliable trends will become apparent. The commercial harvest of any declining native species is completely unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century. Thank you for considering my submission. Jeremy Stead

~~Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad~~

~~1 295 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Jo Davidson s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 9:00 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on longfin eels~~

This species should not be fished at all, we need to support our unique native species, not hasten their decline. Harvested eels are getting smaller and smaller and as they only spawn once in their lives they will never get the chance to breed, leading to their extinction. I support the he Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on the fishing of this species.

~~Kind regards, Jo Davidson~~

~~1 296 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Jo McQueen s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:11 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.

~~Joanne McQueen s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~To whom it may concern As a New Zealander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Joanne McQueen~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~1 297 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 11:10 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin Eels~~

Kia ora. I believe we have to look after our heritage here in New Zealand. Please consider all aspects when discussing quotas. Protect our Longfin Eels. Regards Joanne Wibrow Sent from my Huawei Mobile

~~1 298 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: John Morgan s 9(2)(a) Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 8:34 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Save the eel~~

Hi we are currently working to improve the long fin tuna stocks in the Tongariro. Taupo. Taumarunui. area's we look after the whanganui head waters as well. we so support the campaign. Stop commercial tuna Eel fishing

~~1 299 Sonja Hempel~~

From: John Stevenson s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 11:17 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 - Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.

Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016. My name is John Stevenson. I am a New Zealander, whose family has been in New Zealand since the 1840’s. As a child I swam in South Island rivers whose waters were clear and clean and contained abundant native fish and other aquatic life. Today I see a dramatic decline in these ecosystems and in the numbers of fish in the rivers. I believe I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am very concerned about the future of the longfin eel and horrified that the commercial fishing of this endangered species is allowed to continue. The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilisation or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing. Longfin eels are a single national population and must be managed as such. At the end of their lives, they migrate to distant communal breeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean, where they spawn and die. It is meaningless to set quotas in severely overfished regions to zero, while continuing to harvest eels in other regions, as MPI has proposed. The overfished regions can only be restocked by the offspring of eels from other regions. Continued harvest of eels in those other regions means that the number of elvers will continue to decline, since every eel that is harvested is an eel that will never reproduce. Longfin eels are very slow growing, long-lived and spawn only once at the end of their lives, so their numbers will not increase quickly after a zero quota is established. The zero quota must be maintained for at least twenty years before any reliable trends will become apparent. The commercial harvest of any declining native species is completely unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century. Thank you for considering my submission. John Stevenson 11 July 2016

~~1 300 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Joshua McClutchie s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 11:54 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission for South Island Eel Quota~~

~~To whom it may concern,~~

~~I have read through all the research and data made available to the public and as requested I I am submitting my view as Tangata Whenua and on behalf of my ancestors who relied on Eel for survival.~~

If we are serious about the long term sustainability of Eel stocks in New Zealand I propose that we put a moratorium on total allowable commercial catch until we can accurately determine methods of increasing stocks.

The Status of longfin eels in New Zealand prepared for PCE by NIWA in 2012 suggested that this species is not biologically adapted to a quota method of harvesting due to unique evolutionary features. Regional quotas and size limits are meaningless to the repopulating of this species.

If we continue to allow a commercial quota we must have unquestionable trust and certainly in the research conducted thus far. The data collected may not be useful in determining the future of the species as in my opinion doesn't account for the unusual life cycle and breeding behaviour eels.

I am not willing to gamble the ecological, customary and intrinsic importance of this species to appease commercial fisheries. I understand the commercial importance of the catch, but it will have no value when the stocks are depleted.

As a recreational fisherman I have witnessed a substantial decline in Eel population over my lifetime and as a result I no longer target this species. I hope that one day, I can again share this gift with my children and teach them the respect that this magnificent creature deserves.

~~I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinion.~~

~~Many thanks.~~

~~Joshua McClutchie s 9(2)(a)~~

1 301 I am writing this submission on discussion paper 2016/15, Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11–16 & SFE 11–16) in 2016, to comment specifically on setting the quota for the South Island longfin eel fishery.

My name is Julia Rata-Te Raki I am currently a student of the Open Polytechnic studying an Environmental Management degree and an entrepreneur. Since I was a child I used to go eeling with my dad and keep eels as pets. My curiosity about them grew from there. It was about 25 years ago when I travelled home to Southland to visit my family that I went eeling with my father and it struck me that our usual spots we went eeling, the numbers and sizes weren’t there anymore. I asked dad “why is this happening” and he said he hadn’t been catching many at our spots for years and he blamed it on the dairy farming polluting the creeks and overfishing. This was 25 years ago. He said “first it was the watercress then it was the longfin”. I couldn’t believe that the gentle creatures that I kept as pets were dying because their creeks were being polluted and overfished for the sake of the economy.

It was clear from the beginning that not enough New Zealanders care enough about the longfin eel and haven’t for a long time. Yes they’re not a great spotted kiwi or a blue penguin however they belong to Aotearoa, are endemic to us, have lived here for millions of years and are a crucial top predator of our freshwater ecosystems. These are only a small number of reasons to protect them but as a nation we all have an obligation to protect them for future generations because once they disappear we can never get them back again.

We shouldn’t even be discussing a quota for the longfin eel when it is clearly threaten by extinction because of fishery overexploitation, habitat pollution and migration barriers. They should be protected and not harvested at all in the entire country until we have absolutely proven their recruitment and breeding populations have recovered. I don’t believe there’s enough thorough monitoring and analysis undertaken in the South Island to give us actual and reliable data that supports any longfin eel TACC. Until there is, the South Island longfin eel quota should be reduced to 0 (zero) tonnes over the entire South Island. It should remain this for at least 30 years until absolute evidence has proven that its populations have recovered throughout the entire South Island not just specific areas of the South Island. We must determine this by working with their population trends and breeding biology limitations. Not ours! If it takes longer than 30 years to prove this, then so be it!

I do not believe recreational and customary quotas should change for the longfin eel in the South Island. A more informative education program should be developed to advise all New Zealanders about the Longfin eel. If they understood what was happening to them right now more people would stand up for them and choose not to allow commercial fishing of them at all. The long-term survival of the longfin eel is dependent on the very element that’s pushing them into extinction – HUMANS.

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Julia Rata-Te Raki s 9(2)(a)~~

~~302 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Jura Fearnley s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 12:07 p.m. To: FMSubmissions; Jura Fearnley Subject: Submission on Discussion Paper 2016/15 Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016.

~~[email protected]~~

~~Submission on Discussion Paper 2016/15 Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~I am writing this submission on discussion paper 2016/15 Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

I have lived in the South Island my entire life and during the past thirty five years have been a recreational wild-water kayaker, making frequent trips down many Nelson, West Coast, Canterbury, Otago and Southland rivers. One of the most remarkable, and memorable, experiences of my life was kayaking the Buller river during a period when thousands and thousands of elvers were negotiating the rock banks beside Ariki Falls, heading upstream. On that same trip I saw numerous adult longfin eels, some as thick as my thigh, as I paddled downstream. My first kayaking trips were made in the early 1980s and every year since I have spotted fewer and fewer longfin eels. These days I am lucky to see a single longfin eel during my October- March kayaking season.

It is clear that longfin eels are facing a serious decline in numbers and the only way to stop this decline is to stop all fishing. This view is in accordance with the 2013 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report which stated “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels.”

In brief, I want the South Island Longfin quota for 2016 to be reduced to zero tonnes and I want this zero tonne quota to be maintained indefinitely (forever). I do not believe that commercial fishing of longfin eels is either ethical or sustainable and measures must be taken now to protect the species. There should be no commercial fishing of longfins, ever.

I do not believe that the private interests of the commercial fishery should take precedence over the recognition of the spiritual, historical, cultural and natural ‘value’ of the longfin eel. Stopping commercial fishing of longfin should be the first step towards protecting this native fish.

~~Yours sincerely, Jura Fearnley s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 303 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Justine Quinn s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 5:04 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission: Eel Fisheries~~

To whom it may concern, This email is my submission on the Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016. My name is Justine Quinn and I am a Freshwater Scientist. I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel. The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilisation or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing. Longfin eels are a single national population and must be managed as such. At the end of their lives, they migrate to distant communal breeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean, where they spawn and die. It is meaningless to set quotas in severely overfished regions to zero, while continuing to harvest eels in other regions, as MPI has proposed. The overfished regions can only be restocked by the offspring of eels from other regions. Continued harvest of eels in those other regions means that the number of elvers will continue to decline, since every eel that is harvested is an eel that will never reproduce. Longfin eels are very slow growing, long-lived and spawn only once at the end of their lives, so their numbers will not increase quickly after a zero quota is established. The zero quota must be maintained for at least twenty years before any reliable trends will become apparent. The commercial harvest of any declining native species is completely unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century. Thank you for considering my submission. Justine Quinn

~~1 304 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Karin Sievwright s 9(2)(a) Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 12:51 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin eel quota~~

To whom it may concern, I work as an ecologist and undertake a lot of freshwater field work. Given that the longfin eel is threatened by extinction and is in serious decline, I believe that as kaitiaki we should be protecting this unique species and I whole heartedly support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. Yours sincerely, Karin Sievwright.

~~Karin Sievwright | Graduate Ecologist email: s 9(2)(a) www.boffamiskell.co.nz~~

This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. No claim may be made against Boffa Miskell in regard to the use of data in any attachments. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content.

~~1 305 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Kate Forsman s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 8:41 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.

~~Importance: High~~

~~Katarina Forsman s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~Tena koutou katoa. As Tangata Whenua I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~1 306 Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Tēnā rāwā atu koe,~~

~~Kate Forsman s 9(2)(a)~~

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

~~2 307 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: k wazoo s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 10:11 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: eels~~

~~I support a moratorium on eel harvesting in NZ Kath watzig~~

~~1 308 Submission to stop fishing the long fin eel~~

Submitter – Kathryn Ngapo, s 9(2)(a) Email s 9(2)(a) I am a 56 year old woman of Maori descent and I live on Waiheke Island. I am immensely concerned about the decline in the longfin eel population in New Zealand.

~~1. I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~2. Any native species in serious decline and under threat of extinction shouldn’t be harvested at all.~~

3. Quotas for eel have been set so high that they have rarely been filled – even after they halved the North Island quotas in 2007. If a quota is not filled, then it suggests that the science behind the setting of the quota is inaccurate. I.e. populations of the species are too low for the quota to be met, the species is being overfished and the quota should be even lower.

4. Eels breed only once and then they die - therefore removal of any eel means that they will never reproduce themselves. If a species is declining and becoming threatened it makes sense that it should not be fished if it has this lifecycle. It is in fact irresponsible and inviting extinction to continue commercial fishing of the long finned eel at this point.

5. I believe that commercial fishing of eels should cease and that Maori should put a rahui on eel fishing for recreational or private food source in those areas where the eel is seriously in decline. I also believe that industries and farming practices which pollute and severely degrade or destroy eel habitats should be fined.

~~I strongly support a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. Yours sincerely (Ms) Kathryn Ngapo~~

~~309 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Katy Tamargo s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 4:56 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.

~~Katy Tamargo s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~I am a New Zealander with a young daughter. My daughter and I are stakeholders in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Katy Tamargo.~~

~~1 310 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Keith Beautrais s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 8:56 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eel quota~~

~~Submission on eel fishery management.~~

~~Submitter: Keith Beautrais BSc DipEd, Dip Tchg. s 9(2)(a)~~

Unique Value of Long-fin Eels In my science lab, Year 7 and 8 students see the silhouette of a long-fin eel on a ceiling beam and often express their amazement at its size. Sadly few of them have ever seen such a huge specimen. A creature of legend, a charismatic emblem of our waterways, the long fin eel is an endemic taonga. Students cannot believe that it has so little protection compared to the internationally common trout species. Trout are not solely dependent on our guardianship/ kaitiakitanga but the long-fin eel is.

Unique Vulnerability The ignorance we have of the long-fin eel's breeding requirements should cause substantial alarm. Fish species that gather in massive breeding aggregations do so largely because of the heavy predation aroused by their gathering. Their defence is in their numbers and it is quite possible that long-fin eels are approaching an irreversible tipping point. History has many examples of sudden unexpected extinctions and it is unacceptable that we could let this amazing fish disappear. Already afflicted by the degraded state of our rivers and lakes they need all the help we can give.

Recommendation It is urgent to give full protected status to the long-fin eel. It is our duty to future generations to let them experience the awe at seeing such a magnificent creature. Anyone who has had the thrill of hand-feeding them or watching the migration (tuna heke) would be appalled if full protection was not given. Certainly commercial fishing must be ended.

~~Yours respectfully, Keith Beautrais~~

~~1 311 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Kevin Hester s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 4:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries~~

To whom it may concern in the halls of power, We have a responsibility to the ecosystem, the biosphere, all species that are co-inhabitant’s with us and to future generations to protect our rivers and the multitude of species that occupy them. The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.

Our ecosystem is facing the greatest challenge in the 200,000 yr history of the human race, we are at a crucial time in history when we either step up to the plate or blunder headlong to extinction. Let’s at least slow down the Armageddon. Best regards Kevin Hester s 9(2)(a)

~~1 312 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Kiri s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 9:04 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eels~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~Kiri Lowe s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Sent from my phone~~

~~1 313 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Kyleisha Foote s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 10:22 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on quota of longfin eels in the South Island~~

~~Submission on quota of longfin eels in the South Island~~

~~Kia ora, my name is Kyleisha Foote and I am a freshwater researcher working at Massey University.~~

I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. In April 2013, the PCE stated that: “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is the problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

~~A native species in serious decline and under threat of extinction should not be harvested at all.~~

~~The eel quota has rarely been filled, thus having no effect on sustaining the fishery.~~

Setting different quotas in different regions will have absolutely no effect on the recovery of the eel population. Eels breed only once at the end of their very long lives. When they are ready, eels from all over the country migrate far into the Pacific Ocean to spawn in communal spawning grounds. The numbers of elvers coming back to New Zealand is dependent on the number of adults migrating out to spawn from all regions. The juvenile elvers do not ‘home’ to the rivers their parents came from. Thus eels must be considered a single national population. Population increases in one region are too easily cancelled out by continued fishing in another region”.

The quota includes a minimum and maximum size limit. Usually, size limits allow fish to spawn at least once before they can be caught, and allow the big fish to keep spreading the genes for growing big. Eels spawn only once, right at the end of their lives. It doesn’t matter what size the eel was when it was caught, it will never get to breed. This means that size limits for eels are almost meaningless, and that modelling a sustainable harvest size is impossible.

MPI claims that, of all South Island habitat suitable for longfin eels, only 27% is fished. Nationally, 50% of habitat suitable for longfin eels is no longer accessible to them due to hydro dams. Most of those dams are in the South Island. There are many other types of barriers that exclude longfins from suitable upstream habitat. Eel fishers won’t bother fishing in places with few eels, and they won’t fish the same place very often because it isn’t worth their time. In light of that, 27% of the suitable longfin habitat being fished sounds alarmingly high.

~~Thank you for considering my submission~~

~~Kyleisha Foote~~

~~Kyleisha Foote | Research Assistant Ecology Group | Institute of Agriculture and Environment | Massey University | s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 314 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Laura C s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 6:29 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eel~~

~~Laura Cranston s 9(2)(a) s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~As a New Zealander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Laura Cranston~~

~~1 315 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Lena Bell s 9(2)(a) Sent: Wednesday, 13 July 2016 9:37 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Protection of the long fin eel~~

My name is Lena Morgan. I am in my 3nd year of studing environmental management. I am also involved in a project which catches Eels (80% long fin) from above and below the local hydro dams and transfer them either up or down so they can breed/have access to their natural habitats. I object to the commercial fishing of the long fin eel and any other species which is declining in population. Please make the RIGHT decision and protect the long fin eel from extinction! The species must be preserved for the health and wellbeing of our waterways!

~~Thank you for you time~~

~~Lena Morgan~~

~~1 316 Submission from Clem Smith~~

~~I have been commercial eel fishing on Te Waihora since 1976. I fish 17,768 tonnes of my own quota plus approximately 14 tonnes of quota owned by Independent Fisheries.~~

In the late 1990’s I was part Te Waka Maui working group which helped introduce South Island eels into the quota management system. I am opposed to any increase to the Shortfin eel quota in area 13 for the following reasons.

1 When the present quota was set it was always assumed that at least half of the eels taken would be male migrates. This was mostly the case for the first twelve years or so, but for the last three years things have changed and there has been virtually no male migration. This means that the catch of feeder eels has doubled in the last three years. If the last three years prove to be an aberration, and the migrates come back, then an increase may be justified, but if not we could be looking at cut in quota. What ever happens it is important that we see how the lake responds to the extra almost 200 tonnes of feeders which have been removed, before an increase is considered.

2 The case for an increase seems to be based almost entirely on Catch Effort data, which shows an sustained increase in catch per unit effort data. This data relates to when a big amount of migrates were taken out, leaving only a limited amount of feeders to be taken, on which this data is based. At this time the eel market was good and so the eels were caught at the optimum fishing time. Since then the market has crashed and so fishers have had to catch double the amount of eels( because of the migrate crash) at times when the eels are not so easy to catch. The latest data will show a downward curve. If you give a quota increase based on the upward curve you will have to remove it a year or two later based on the later data.

~~3 There is a good customary fishery based at Taumutu. It is very important that this is not put at risk.~~

4 I firmly believe that commercial fisheries should be part of nature, not destroying it. At the moment there are signs of birds, such as shags , struggling to find food. If there is indeed an extra 13 tonnes of eels which can be caught, they should be caught by creatures other than commercial fishers.

On the matter of the Long fin quota, commercial fishers have not targeted Long fin for several years and have agreed to throw back what we have caught. I would prefer the lake and its tributies to become a no go take for commercial, customary and recreational Long Fin fishing.

~~If, however, you do issue quota it should be issued in the same proportions as agreed by TWM, 2% recreational, 20% customary and 78% commercial.~~

~~Clem Smith~~

~~317 Don Bailey, s 9(2)(a)~~

~~29th June 2016~~

To: Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries P O Box 2526 Wellington 6011. This is a Submission by Don Bailey, on: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 1116 & SFE 11-16) in 2016. MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/15 I have been an eel fisherman since 1978. I have mainly fished ANG 16 (West Coast), with some ANG 12 and (latterly) some ANG 13 (assisting Pullan Enterprises). I fully support the submission and accompanying arguments of Pullan Enterprises Ltd, and the South Island Eel Industry Association Inc. With regard to the Options presented in the Discussion Document, I prefer the following:

SFE 12 – Option 2 LFE 12 – Option 3 SFE 13 – Option 2 LFE 13 – Option 1 SFE 14 – Option 2 SFE 14 – Option 3 SFE 16 – Option 2 LFE 16 – Option 2 With regard to LFE 13, I do not take longfin eels from this lake, so Option 1 is acceptable. If a hearing occurs, I would like to be heard in support of this submission. Yours faithfully

~~Don Bailey~~

~~318 Stuart Cridge, s 9(2)(a)~~

29th June 2016 To: Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries P O Box 2526 Wellington 6011. This is a Submission by Stuart Cridge, on: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 1116 & SFE 11-16) in 2016. MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/15 We hold 8.966 Tonnes of quota in ANG 13 With regard to the Options presented in the Discussion Document for ANG 13, we prefer Option 2. This is far less of a TACC increase than it should be. However, this is a precautionary interim measure, and we understand that there will be a further TACC review of the new stocks in 2018. If CPUE remains at its current high level, we expect this very modest increase to be reviewed upwards again in 2018. We also support the submissions of Pullan Enterprises Ltd, and the South Island Eel Industry Association Inc. With regard to LFE 13, Option 1 is acceptable because longfin eels are not taken from Lake Ellesmere. If a hearing is to be held, we would like to be heard in support of this submission. Yours faithfully

~~Stuart Cridge CRIDGE SEEDS LTD~~

~~319 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 8:14 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long Fin Eels quota~~

~~To whom it may concern~~

~~My name is Liam Macfarlane and I am nine years old.~~

I live in Whangaripo valley and we have long fin and short fin eels under our bridge. I Think the government could show some respect to the long fins!! I have noticed there are not as many large females around. Are they threatened because we're not taking care of the landscape and the fertiliser that we use for growing grass and feeding cows getting in the rivers lakes and ponds? Please consider limiting the harvesting of long fin eels so I can keep my eels and they won't become threatened and other kids can enjoy feeding them and seeing them.

~~1 320 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Liam Wright s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 10:29 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin eel~~

~~Hi,~~

I'm Liam Wright from Rotorua, and I'd like you to consider, at the very least, adopting the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recommended action of a moratorium on the harvesting of longfin eels. While I believe this action is the minimum that should be taken, ideally, I believe we should stop the harvesting of this endemic species for good. For one, the intrinsic value of this, as with all species, cannot be understated. Further to this, the pressures placed upon this species from habitat destruction, environmental degradation, over-fishing and other anthropogenic stressors, have put this species in decline and under threat of extinction. Aside from the fact that the longfinned eel is in serious decline & threatened with extinction (therefore shouldn't be being harvested at all), current quota limits are so high, that they are rarely met! Therefore basing quotas upon average catches, as proposed will have zero effect. Please consider taking the above actions, to protect this beautiful, endemic species.

~~Regards,~~

~~Liam Wright~~

~~1 321 Submission from Logan Bowis~~

~~I fish four tonnes of my own eel quota on Te Waihora, plus 14 tonnes of Independent fisheries quota [eight of which belongs to Stuart Cridge}.~~

~~For several years all my catch was on migrate eels. For the last few years there have been no migrates and so all my catch has been on feeders.~~

~~How then can you justify issuing more quota?~~

~~As for Long fin, I do not think it is necessary to issue any quota, but if you do it should be issued to the parties in the same proportions as the short fin quota.~~

~~322 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Malcolm Rands s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 7:10 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Moratorium on eels~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~Malcolm Rands s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Please excuse typos. Small keys, fat fingers~~

~~1 323 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~10 July 2016~~

~~Dave Turner~~

~~Dear Sir~~

~~I have been involved in the customary fishery on Te Waihora for about sixty years. I am one of the Tangata Tiaki for Ngati Moki, Taumutu.~~

~~For the last few years I have also fished fourteen tonnes of quota owned by independent fisheries.~~

~~Up until two years ago the customary fishery at Taumutu had shown a steady improvement, with there being plenty of eels available to those who wished to catch them.~~

However in the last two years there has been a decline in the number of big eels available. If this trend continues a shortage of big customary eels may occur, leading to unnecessary friction between customary and commercial fishers.

~~You can help head off this situation by not increasing the quota on the lake.~~

As a Tangata Tiaka I have actively discouraged the taking of Longfin eels for customary purposes. As a commercial fisher I, like the other commercial fishers, release the Lonf fin eels which I catch. Therefore I see no need for any Long fin quota.

~~Yours sincerely~~

~~Malcolm Wards~~

~~324 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Mandie Brown s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:09 p.m. To: FMSubmissions~~

~~Sent from my iPad s 9(2)(a) MANDIE BROWN~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~Tena koe my name is Mandie Brown. As a TANGATA WHENUA I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~MANDIE BROWN~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~1 325 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Margie Beautrais s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 9:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on Long-Finned Eel~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

Long-finned eels are under threat of extinction and shouldn’t be harvested at all. They are amazing and intelligent creatures with huge cultural and historical importance for Maori. The commercial fishing of tuna is completely unsustainable and is a flagrant breach of the Treaty of Waitangi assurance of continued control by Maori of all traditional fisheries. The history of how the NZ govt has attempted to exterminate eels is shameful, and the continued catch represents a contemporary extermination that is just as abhorrent.

~~Margie Beautrais~~

~~Educator s 9(2)(a)~~

~~-- Margie Beautrais~~

~~1 326 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Matt Hamblett s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 10:45 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Fwd: South Island long fin eel quota~~

~~------Forwarded message ------From: "Matt Hamblett" s 9(2)(a) Date: 7 Jul 2016 22:43 Subject: South Island long fin eel quota To: Cc:~~

~~My name is Matthew Hamblett. I live in Invercargill.~~

I believe that there should be a halt to any long fin eel take in the South Island until the population is shown to be in good health and no longer in decline. There are no native land animals facing a human harvest whilst in such a vulnerable position

~~Yours Matt Hamblett~~

~~1 327 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Maxwell Kerr s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 12:24 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: setting of the quota of longfin eels in the South Island~~

~~Hello,~~

I propose a 0 catch quota for commercial and recreational (iwi exemption) taking of longfin eels in the South Island for 5 years. Make the right decision and don't let an endemic species become extinct on your watch. Money isn't everything.

~~cheers~~

~~-- Max Kerr s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 328 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Michael Szabo & Stephanie Mills s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 5:37 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin Eel submission~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~Yours Sincerely, Michael Szabo s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 329 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Michelle Dagg s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 10:40 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: quota on longfin eels~~

My name is Michelle and I am a mother of two living in Wellington. I grew up with an abundance of native species which are fond memories in my childhood. I would like the same for my children. Native species in serious decline and under threat of extinction shouldn’t be harvested at all. I would like the future to be amazing for my children and my childrens children as we live in an amazing haven for gorgeous creatures which enable us to learn a lot about us as humans and the many animals that we live alongside.

~~Michelle Dagg s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 330 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Mike Dickison s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 10:29 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: 2016/15 Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries~~

I am writing this submission on discussion paper 2016/15, Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11–16 & SFE 11–16) in 2016, to comment specifically on the South Island longfin eel fishery.

I am a biologist, and Curator of Natural History at the Whanganui Regional Museum. Whanganui has a deep connection with tuna and their harvest, and local iwi have resolved to improve the health of the river so stocks can recover; in my job I talk to the community about freshwater health and the biology of our native fishes. And of course as a South Islander, and a New Zealander, I’m a stakeholder in the health of South Island freshwater ecosystems, including longfins.

The independent panel commissioned by MPI in 2015 concluded that, although longfin numbers had probably dropped 80% from its original level, the decline may have slowed or “perhaps even slightly reversed” in the last five years. I am concerned that MPI has represented this as evidence that longfin eel stocks in the South Island are now recovering and can continue to support a commercial eel harvest.

There could be numerous explanations for the small uptick that is being used to claim longfin stocks are now recovering. Given longfins take well over a decade to reach a commercial catch weight, any real population increases would have to have begun at the height of mass dairy conversion and degradation in water quality we are observing in the South Island. Conversely, impacts being made today on breeding success and the recruitment of elvers into waterways will not affect the commercial eel harvest for over a decade. So it is unlikely that variations in catch per unit effort now, in isolation, are actually giving us good information on longfin population trends.

The independent experts commissioned by MPI found numerous problems with measures currently being used to assess eel numbers, and recommended that an integrated, long-term monitoring process begin, using a wide range of techniques and assessing all potential threats to longfins. Even adjusted for unit effort, catch rates represent the behaviour of fishers as much as the number of eels present – eel fishers are highly mobile and target just the areas where eels can be most easily caught, which can mask pervasive declines in the population.

There appears to be a difference of opinion between MPI and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as to whether the longfin population is at a harvestable level, and whether it is continuing to decline. It would seem impossible to allow a commercial fishery until, at the very least, both of these questions are settled to the satisfaction of the research community.

~~My opinion, speaking as a scientist, is this:~~

1. The South Island longfin quota for 2016 should be reduced to zero (0) tonnes, and maintained thus for 20 years, during which longfin populations will be monitored to determine if they are in fact recovering. 2. The quota should be uniform for the entire South Island, as elvers do not return to a specific stream, and so the entire breeding population of New Zealand is a single management unit, with harvestable eels in a few areas supporting the eel population of the entire country. It seems odd to allow effectively unrestricted harvest of longfins in areas like the West Coast (LFE 16) when these populations are supplying elvers, and thus determining stock levels, for the rest of the South Island. 3. If the quota is not reduced to zero, it should be reduced to a level well below the current commercial take, as one of the few methods available to immediately help reverse the decades-long decline of longfins. The “nominal catch” levels indicated for LFE 11, 12, 13, & 14 would be appropriate, and should be extended to LFE 15 and 16,

1 331 instead of the proposed levels of half the current average commercial catch (LFE 15) or an unrestricted continuing commercial catch of 25 tonnes (LFE 16). 4. MPI should take the initiative in supporting a research programme, run by all fisheries biologists and ecologists with expertise in longfin eels, that will clearly determine a) a population level of longfins able to support a commerical harvest (for example, 30% of the pre-fishery stock) and b) robust, well-accepted methods of determining whether that level has been reached. 5. Until those methods have been settled on, and until the population has recovered to that agreed level, the TACC should remain at 0 or nominal. 6. This research programme should be totally or substantially funded not by the New Zealand taxpayer, but by the commercial longfin industry. If the commercial eel industry is not willing to help determine if longfin stocks can be sustainably harvested, they should no longer be allowed the privilege of taking and exporting this publicly-owned resource. Other extractive industries are responsible for determining the environmental impact of their activities: the eel fishery should be no exception. 7. Recreational and traditional quota should remain unchanged if not reduced to a nominal level, but a consultation and education programme should begin with iwi to give each region the option of setting traditional harvest levels to 0 – effectively, a rahui – for a similar period, and working with ecologists to monitor the health and population levels of their local longfin stocks.

~~Quite apart from the scientific arguments, though, about methods for assessing stock levels, I would like to propose another reason why the South Island longfin quota be set to zero.~~

~~It is abhorrent.~~

I believe that if most New Zealanders understood the population trends and breeding biology of longfins, and that this species was nevertheless still being caught and exported for profit, they would vote to shut the industry down tomorrow. If it were similarly-threatened native birds being harvested for export, there would be public outrage. Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief that we allowed a commercial longfin industry to carry on into the 21st century, long after the decline of this species was clear; just as we do today when we recall New Zealand was still carrying out commercial whaling into the 1960s.

~~Thank you for considering this submission. I am happy to be heard in person in support of it if required.~~

~~Dr Mike Dickison · Curator of Natural History, Whanganui Regional Museum www.wrm.org.nz · s 9(2)(a)~~

~~2 332 Mike & Paula Pullan s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries P O Box 2526 Wellington 6011~~

~~7 July 2016~~

~~Submission regarding SFE13 & LFE13 (ANG13) Lake Ellesmere~~

I, Mike Pullan am the son of Garry Pullan and have fished with him for a number of years. My wife Paula’s father (Theo Lubbers) also fished for eels on Lake Ellesmere before the quota system came in. So we have a long history on the Lake.

We support Option 1 for SFE13. We do not support an increase of SFE ANG 13 even though it is extremely obvious that there has been a remarkable increase in eel numbers and the fishery would most likely handle it. We feel that an extremely sustainable biomass is far more important. With three young boys who we strongly hope will carry on a family tradition and be fourth generation fishermen on the Lake why change something that seems to be working.

~~In regards to LFE 13 one ton would be better and in the same ratio as present in regards to customary, recreational and commercial catch.~~

~~Regards Mike Pullan Pullan Enterprises Ltd~~

~~333 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: nicola Weatherley s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 12:52 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on Longfin Eel.~~

To whom it may concern I am writing this email to express my concern of the fishing of the NZ LongFin eel, these native species are in serious decline in some areas and other areas may appear to be healthy but as these precious eels only bred once in their lifetime and usually towards the end of their lives, which I believe is lengthy, then the quota system is totally inadequate and uneducated.

If a species only breeds once in their lifetime then numbers become very misjudging, it would take several decades to get a truly accurate reading of approx. numbers, not just monitoring for a couple of years.

We use to have long fin eels close when I was growing up that same area eels have not been seen for a number of years, this means that they are highly likely to be extinct in this area. Just because another area may appear to have reasonable numbers is not a true indication of the population of the long fin eels.

The size of the eels when caught is also a totally uneducated way to gauge harvesting, it is highly likely that those eels being caught have not bred. By the time govt fisheries start to see a decline in numbers it is to late!!

~~Therefore Long Fin Eels show be protected and not allowed to be fished. Thank you~~

~~Yours sincerely~~

~~Nicola Weatherley~~

~~1 334 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Nicolaas Thiemen Francken - s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 2:47 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.

~~Nicolaas Francken s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016. As an avid fan of the South Island, and because I came to New Zealand because of its environmental splendour, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~1 335 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Niki Burtenshaw s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 8:51 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin and Shjort fin eels -Tuna~~

~~Niki Burtenshaw s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

Kia ora my name is NIki Burtenshaw and I am a New Zealander, tangata whenua, mother and teacher. I am also a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Your sincerely Niki Burtenshaw~~

~~1 336 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Oliver Bone s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 1:10 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: longfin eel~~

~~Kia ora, I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~Cheers, Oliver~~

~~1 337 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: otis berard s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 4:45 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin eels~~

~~Otis Berard s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~Kia ora, I'm Otis.~~

~~As a kiwi I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~-Otis~~

~~1 338 Sonja Hempel~~

From: s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 6:54 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Cc: s 9(2)(a) Subject: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016

~~To Whom it May Concern,~~

I am founder and Executive Director of The Biodiversity Group. My organization has visited NZ on several occasions and witnessed first-hand your majestic longfin eels and the conservation crisis surrounding them. The government of New Zealand has an unprecedented opportunity to make science and ethics-based management decisions to help assure their survival far into the future.

While I applaud initial opinions and efforts by MPI, they need to be followed up by concrete management decisions. These decisions include elimination of the economically insignificant longfin eel fishery industry. The measures before you are an unequivocal step in the right direction; please do the world a favor: implement these actions post-haste and save your eels.

~~Best fishes, Paul Hamilton, PhD~~

~~Paul Hamilton, PhD, Executive Director~~

~~www.BiodiversityGroup.org phone: s 9(2)(a)~~

~~www.BiodiversityPhotography.org Skype: s 9(2)(a)~~

~~[email protected] LinkedIn s 9(2)(a) (map)~~

~~1 339 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Paul Hodgkinson s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 4:43 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin Eel Quota South Island only submission~~

~~Please record as "anonymous" due to possible career implications. Paul Hodgkinson s 9(2)(a)~~

This submission is supports a Moratorium on Longfin eel fishing: 1) until its decline is stopped and its habitats are protected in legislation to ensure its survival. 2) there is a comprehensive, long term, peer reviewed and transparent data study on the species that shows there is no declining trend. The recent review talked about in the: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016 MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/15 does not include the data or references to who completed the study and under what criteria so as to allow full evaluation of data. This raise questions over the scientific resilience of the study and the statistics and data that this Government is so keen on to justify any of its actions. Were size, sex or age of the eels considered this is especially important given the long life span and migratory nature of the species. The numbers being counted in this study may only reflect a small population increase from ten, twenty or thirty years ago not the trend of species numbers needed for survival. Please do not again ignore independent advice or the PCE , over narrow studies with limited scope or reviews by international experts that do not understand New Zealand unique conditions. Why was it done by overseas experts when there exist some considerable expertise in NZ? or did MPI not like the answers provided by NZ scientific community and went outside to find someone to agree with them. Ongoing issues with climate change, water quality and increasing demand from population growth especially if treated as an export resource will greatly impact on these species in the future. There have been very few documented studies on NZ native fisheries so basing quota on the data from those exploiting the resource is just negligent. What over sight is there over the fishery and compliance by MPI? Regards Paul Hodgkinson

~~1 340 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Penny Baker s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 4:58 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on longfin eel quota.~~

~~Good morning,~~

~~My name is Penelope Baker and we are farmers from the Hawkes Bay. I grew up in the South Island and wish to submit on the proposed quota being set for longfin eels.~~

I am against any quota that is set for the fishing on longfin eels for the following reasons: 1. Eels do not breed until the end of their lives and it's these mature eels that are first fished out. 2. Loss of habitat due to interruptions in their journeys to and from the ocean from such obstacles as culverts means that the numbers of eels are declining. 3. Nowhere else in the world has commercial quota for a threatened or endangered species, nobody else is that stupid.

~~Regards, Penelope Baker~~

~~Penny Baker s 9(2)(a)~~

CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING This e-mail message, including any attachment(s), is confidential. If we sent this communication to you in error, please do not disclose it to anyone else or use the information in it. Please notify the sender of the transmission error and then delete our communication from your system.

~~1 341 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Home s 9(2)(a) Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016 6:43 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on current review of annual quota for the South Island commercial eel fishery~~

~~Submission on current review of annual quota for the South Island commercial eel fishery.~~

~~My name is Peter Hamill - I am a environmental scientist specialising in freshwater ecology.~~

~~I submit that the Total Allowable Catch for longfin eels throughout the South Island should be set at zero.~~

I believe that continued commercial exploitation of longfin eels places the entire species at an unacceptably high risk. The commercial exploitation of other species with a similar threat status, (for example the Great Spotted Kiwi and the New Zealand Falcon), would not be tolerated by the general public an neither should the public tolerate the exploitation of longfin eels.

I have personally seen the numbers of longfin eel migrating over a hydro dam drop from in the order of 12- 13,000 per year to less than 2,000 a year in only the last decade. It is time to stop this trend before we are lamenting the loss of another iconic New Zealand species.

~~Thank you for your consideration on this important matter.~~

~~Yours sincerely,~~

~~Peter Hamill Snr Environmental Scientist~~

~~1 342 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Phil Stevens s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 4:28 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on South Island Longfin Eel quota consideration~~

~~To the Minister, Primary Industries:~~

I am writing to urge the Ministry to introduce a moratorium on all longfin eel harvesting in the South Island. Since the release of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report three years ago, there has been ample evidence and a perfectly clear case for action. No responsible steward or manager of a resource, when faced with such a precipitous decline in numbers, would continue to allow commercial take of the dwindling breeding stock until the trend has clearly reversed and research conducted into what actually may comprise a sustainable catch.

~~Thank you for your consideration of my submission.~~

~~Nga mihi.~~

~~Phil Stevens Ashhurst~~

~~1 343 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: W Purvis s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 7:56 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: no harvesting~~

~~I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~In my opinion there should be no harvesting of a species unless it can be proven to be sustainable – ie if a species is in a serious decline or at risk or extinction it should not be harvested.~~

~~Philippa Purvis s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 344 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Queenie Ballance s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 3:49 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel~~

~~Submission on:~~

~~Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 1116 & SFE 11-16) in 2016~~

~~My submission relates to the South Island longfin eel fishery.~~

I am an older woman who has always been involved in environmental issues to some degree. As I age my concern is what will be the state of the environment which my grandchildren and their children will inherit.

In this instance my concern is the South Island longfin eel industry. We seem to have become more concerned about economic return now, rather than a good long term environmental outcome. Will my grandchildren’s children see longfin eels at all is a question I ask myself.

For this reason I support the the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s statement of April 2013 that:“It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is the problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

Three years on, and the commercial harvest of this threatened species is still legal. Around 200 tonnes of longfin eels are exported annually. Most of it goes to countries that have already destroyed their own native eels. Some of the catch gets turned into pet food. As longfin eels only breed once at the end of their life, and not necessarily returning to their place of birth, a moratorium on longfin eel fishing for at least 20 years is needed to stabilise numbers.

~~As I only heard of the consultation process on this issue yesterday, I have not had time to carry out much research, my submission is therefore basic and based on my knowledge from previous work.~~

~~Thankyou for the opportunity to submit.~~

~~Queenie Ballance s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Email – s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 345 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Rebecca McLeod s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 8:12 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on current review of annual quota for the South Island commercial eel fishery~~

~~Re: Submission on current review of annual quota for the South Island commercial eel fishery.~~

I am a marine ecologist and currently work as a Science Research Advisor for a significant New Zealand research programme. I also Chair the Fiordland Marine Guardians, although I make this submission as an independent individual.

~~I submit that the Total Allowable Catch for longfin eels throughout the South Island should be set at zero.~~

The continued commercial exploitation of longfin eels places the entire species at an unacceptably high risk, due to the life-history traits (extreme longevity and semelparity), significant uncertainty around biology and exploitation limits (lack of knowledge regarding population size, spawning, and effects of climate change on recruitment; recruitment variability and lifespan means trends are hard to detect; panmictism – allee effect and likelihood of population collapse), and significant additional pressures, such as habitat loss, habitat degradation and migration barriers.

~~Due consideration must be given to the intrinsic value of longfin eels as endemic and ecological keystone species.~~

I do not have expertise in the sustainability of fishing longfin eels and so look to experts for guidance. In April 2013 Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, released a review of the status and management of the longfin eel: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. April 2013. On a Pathway to Extinction? An investigation into the status and management of the longfin eel. Wellington, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Dr Wright states “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” In my opinion, the recommendations of this investigation must be adopted, at the least, until such time as the sustainability of such a fishery can be demonstrated.

~~Thank you for your consideration on this important matter.~~

~~Yours sincerely, Rebecca McLeod, PhD. s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 346 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Roger Grace s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 10:00 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long-finned eel.~~

I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on catching of long-finned eel. There is no way such an endemic and endangered species should be caught, commercially or otherwise. The evidence is clear that the species is in serious decline. There is no demonstrated need to fish for this species - it is purely for short-term selfish economic gain.

~~Roger Grace PhD., QSM Independent Marine Biologist~~

~~1 347 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: rose s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 9:44 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Setting quotas of longfin eels~~

~~This submission is about the setting of the quota of longfin eels in the South Island.~~

I am Rose Jamieson, a concerned citizen from Dunedin. I have a long fin eel living in the creek at the bottom of my garden. Through encounters with this fellow I have developed an interest in these amazing creatures. I have researched their life cycle and habits, they are truly awesome creatures.

For our country to loose our native longfin eel, a native species in serious decline and under threat of extinction, would be a disaster. We must protect them to the full extent of our ability. Therefore, I support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels. I also believe there should be a zero quota for their harvest. Anything more in an inevitable death sentence for their species.

~~1 348 Sonja Hempel~~

From: rclucas s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 27 June 2016 1:04 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016

I am submitting in support of the Ministries review of management for the Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries. I support the recognition that the Ministry gives to some longfin eel stocks being in decline and that adjustments are required that allows the population to rebuild.

I support Option 1 for LFE 15 that proposes the TAC and TACC be set based on half the average annual commercial catch for longfin eels reported since the fishery entered the QMS in 2000 (68.57 t). This means as per Table 11 in this discussion document that a TAC of 44.23 tonne, customary TAC 8.84 tonne, Rec TAC of 0.89 tonne and a TACC of 35 tonne is appropriate

I declare my association to this species is through the utilisation of eel by our tupuna as one of the most significant food resources provided by our ancestral whenua/awa. Longfin eel/tuna are intimately tied to this whenua and specifically Te Waka a Maui. They are an indigenous species that has evolved in this landscape and their inland penetration reflects their adaptation to our mountainous landscape. The size and age they attain makes them totems of our deep lakes, mighty rivers and what were once vast wetland complexes. They are the megafauna of our awa and have not since commercial exploitation and eradication attempts by the acclimatization societies been accorded the respect due to them as original inhabitants and an iconic species. The endemic longfin is the top predator of the large rivers of the East Coast of Te Waka a Maui. Longfin can comprise approximately 90% of the overall fish biomass in undisturbed waterways.

I support the most conservative of the options for each of the LF stock units LFE 11 - 16. I have above referred specifically in this submission to the Otago (AV) portion of LFE 15, since this is where I live and where I have the most experience. The MPI paper considers LFE Otago are at the soft limit at which option should be taken. The adequacy of the data or the methods for deciding on TAC does not appear explicit however I am reassured that the decision has been made to reassess the TAC. Where the generational time of an adult female longfin is likely to mean that she came up the river in the 1970's then determining current quota on catch data since 2001 (Figure 9), implies to me we should be acting with considerable caution when setting catch limits.

The conservation status of this species is now categorised as ‘At Risk’ and ‘In Decline’. Concern over the current status of the longfin and the sustainability of the longfin fishery was brought to a head in the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment ‘On the pathway to extinction?, prompted by increasing public concern into the status of the longfin population in New Zealand. NIWA has shown through a multitude of peer reviewed scientific reports that longfin stocks have become seriously depleted. A combination of landuse practice, drain creation and clearance and electrical generation infrastructure has seriously impacted longfin eel habitat while commercial exploitation has continued with quota levels that annually exceeded landings.

In the South Island the longfin forms the bulk of the commercial take. In the Clutha/Mata-Au River NIWA fisheries analyses has found large longfin females were poorly represented and were estimated at 4% of the total longfin biomass. A further analysis of two years of longfin commercial catch data 1996 - 1998, found the majority of the total catch were 49% immature (sexually undifferentiated) and 37% male eels. A skew in the sex ratio supporting more male longfins is now recognised as a demographic trend in the large rivers of the lower South Island. Although the upper commercial limit is now set at 4 kg, there are very few longfin that are now caught at 4 kg as the probability of capture before an eel reaches this size is so high. Unfished populations are dominated by large

1 349 females which is the biological norm in which this species has evolved to be successful. The longfin is a slow growing long-lived species that reproduces once, investing in the growth of large females for the required levels of fecundity to ensure adequate recruitment.

I hope that this readjustment of the quota will be adequate to begin to reverse the decline in longfin abundance in our lakes and rivers. The long generational time for longfin means that we should not be complacent in our monitoring and responsiveness implementing further appropriate changes to quota as further information of the longfin biomass accrues. And that we seek to build better informed models for interpreting population data that improves our management of eel in New Zealand.

In addition, it has been suggested that there are no significant effect on non target species with regard to the eel fishery. My concern lies with giant kokopu (Galaxias argenteus) that inhabitant lowland waterways and whose habitat overlaps significantly with shortfin eel. Giant kokopu have been in decline and in many places are almost non-existent from places they were previously common,in particular Otago. Anyone who has fished for giant kokopu knows that fyke nets are an efficient method for catching these fish. Survival of these fish in a net full of eel, where nets are left for a number of nights, seems unlikely.

Also the trophic cascade effects of removing an apex predator from our waterways by commercial fishing is given scant regard. The sustained removal of the an ecological dominant on other native fish species requires attention. Where its removal is likely to have allowed exotic salmonids to have taken up this role I suggest the effect has largely been detrimental.

~~Thankyou for responding to public concerns on this issue and acting to improve the stock status of longfins. Thankyou for allowing submission on this important component of our freshwater heritage.~~

~~Rosemary Clucas~~

~~2 350 10 July 2016~~

~~This is a submission on the setting of the quota of longfin eels in the South Island.~~

My name is Rosi Merz, I’m a research assistant at Victoria University in the field of developing better lures for pest control, and hold a bachelor in Ecology and Biodiversity. I volunteer for the Society of Conservation Biology VUW (SCB), doing restoration and predator control, volunteer management and event management.

~~Me and SCB support the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on harvesting longfin eels.~~

~~It is in my and SCB’s interest to protect this threatened species. In our opinion native species in serious decline and under threat of extinction shouldn’t be harvested at all.~~

We support that the quota of fishing long fin eels in New Zealand is set to zero. Quotas are designed to protect stocks from overfishing by restricting the size of the harvest. Unfortunately, the eel quotas have been set so high that they have rarely been filled. The quota for long fin eel fishing is in serious need of change given the threatened status of this species.

Setting different quotas in different regions will have little to no effect on the recovery of the eel population. The numbers of elvers coming back to New Zealand is dependent on the number of adults migrating out to spawn from all regions. The juvenile elvers do not ‘home’ to the rivers their parents came from. Thus eels should be considered a single national population. Population increases in one region are too easily cancelled out by continued fishing in another region.

Size limits for eels are almost meaningless given that eels breed only once at the end of their long lives, and therefore this modelling seems inappropriate for this species. Catching bigger individuals only will only remove older individuals that were closer to spanning. It doesn’t matter what size the eel was when it was caught, it will never get to breed.

~~We need to assure that there are populations of eels that~~

Additional pressures such as habitat loss and degradation (largely due to migratory barriers such as dams) are also significant players in the decline of long and short fin eel populations. We believe that a particularly precautionary approach to management is required for the eels and that a species at risk of extinction should under no circumstances be commercially harvested.

~~Kind Regards~~

~~351 Rosi Merz~~

~~352 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Ra & lp Campbell s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 6:18 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on South Island Longfin and Shortfin eels area 15~~

~~Dear Dave~~

I am making a submission on area SFE 15 and LFE 15, being the area I hold eel quota in and have fished for the past 47 years. I believe that the TACC for SFE should be option 2. I have always targeted LFE with bait as they are the easiest to catch. Shortfin eels are very difficult to catch compared to LFE and many fishermen do not target them for this reason. You need much larger fyke nets and long wings attached using no bait to catch any quantity. The fishermen who are working in Otago the last few seasons do not have the expertise to catch large amounts of SFE and do not have enough suitable gear to achieve large catches. Also very large catches are only achievable on big flood years. There have been no large floods in Otago or Southland (ANG15) for the last 4 seasons. Two North Island fishermen who are experts at catching SFE, fished for SFE in Lake Waihola this season (March), and caught 8 tons in about 3 weeks. The eels went to Mossburn Enterprises Ltd. There are good stocks of SFE in Otago and Southland.

Regarding the options for LFE in area 15, I believe that option 2 is the best option. Option 2 will allow the weight of LFE in area 15 to approximately double every 4-5 years. Option 1 would be a very bad option as there is no sound reason to lower the commercial catch to this low level, as the catches of eels in this area is still stable and have been since eels went into quota in 2000. This would result in many eel fishermen leaving the industry and would also have a significant effect on the eel processors ability to survive. It would also greatly effect the value of the eel quota as will all other reductions in all other areas. The weight of eels in area 15 would more than double every season, which is way to much and no need. Option 3 would also be a bad option as it will take too many years to get any significant increase in the weight of eels in area 15.

~~Yours Sincerely~~

~~Ross Campbell~~

~~1 353 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Roz Palethorpe s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 9:33 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on longfin eel fishing~~

~~Roz Palethorpe s 9(2)(a)~~

~~10 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~To whom it may concern,~~

~~As a New Zealander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

I am deeply concerned that we as a nation continue to display such a reckless and cavalier attitude towards our endemic species. Our ecosystem is fragile and threatened on all sides by human activity and climactic change. To compound this threat with commercial fishing of a taonga such as the longfin eel is illogical and goes against the image we portray to the world as being a clean, green nation. We have a duty of care towards the flora and fauna of this country and that should extend to all, not just those birds that look photogenic.

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Roz Palethorpe~~

~~1 354 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Ruth McLean s 9(2)(a) Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 7:14 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Eels~~

~~RUTH MCLEAN s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~KIA ORA. I am making this submission as a NZER who wants a halt to the massive destruction of native habitat in our country.~~

~~I am therefore, a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to ZERO!~~

As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is CRITICAL that we STOP FISHING LONGFIN EELS. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

~~1 355~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~RUTH MCLEAN~~

~~2 356 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Sam Thomas s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 6:38 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin Eel submission~~

~~Dear Sir/Madam,~~

I am writing in support of the Parliamentary commissioner for the Environment's call for a moratorium on harvesting of longfin eels. I don't that any native species in serious decline or under threat of extinction should be harvested at all.

~~Kind Regards,~~

~~Sam Thomas~~

~~1 357 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Sam La Hood s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:20 p.m. To: FMSubmissions~~

~~Samantha La Hood s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

My name is Samantha La Hood and I live in Otaua, Northland. We have a local river where you may see am eel if you are lucky. I would like for every measure to be taken to protect and increase our endemic eel populations. As I am a New Zealand Maori I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. All commercial quotas should be reduced to zero if not immediately then in set stages.~~

As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” I completely agree with this statement and I believe it is the right of New Zealanders to request protection of the longfin eels.

~~1 358 Thank you for considering my submission. I hope you take the serious action needed to protect longfin eels and understand the grave concern of the aware public.~~

~~Samantha La Hood~~

~~2 359 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Robert Meyst s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 9:02 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eel quota, South Island~~

~~To the Ministry,~~

This is my submission on your current review of the fishing of long fin eels in th South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand. I fully support the moratorium on harvesting of longing eels in New Zealand as proposed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The reasons being that they are in danger of becoming extinct and cannot be harvested sustainably. Populations of eels have already become extinct in other parts of the world and to kill our eels in the same manner is totally unacceptable. These wonderful taonga only breed once at the end of their lives and this makes them especially vulnerable to other pressures such as fishing, habitat loss and pollution. The quota system in New Zealand is not accurate as it does not reflect the amount of juvenile eels being caught, and is not met so indicates there is not the numbers of eels to support such an industry.

~~Yours Sincerely, Sandra Meyst s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad~~

~~1 360 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Sarah Oliver s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 3:59 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.

~~1 July 2016~~

~~To whom it may concern~~

I live in the Waikato and I am a New Zealander and as such consider our rivers to be critical to the health of our country. Currently I live beside one of our country's rivers which is slowly being degraded and the species that inhabit it are in decline. As a New Zealander I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.

I used to teach at the Waikato Museum and one of the education programmes we hosted included discussion and learning about out eels. The children's fascination and joy learning about these special animals was incredible, and it is for them that we must act now to make sure all future generations will not have to visit museums to learn about creatures from the past that are now extinct.

~~I therefore ask that the commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island is set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Sarah Oliver~~

~~1 361 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:08 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: re: Submission for Long Finned Eel~~

~~Shelley Hackett s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1oth July 2016 Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

HI, My name is Shelley Hackett and I feel very strongly about putting in a submission in regarding the Long fin and short fin Eel fisheries. I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.

~~I recommend that the commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. This is because fishing this extraordinary animal is not sustainable in any sense.~~

Eel Fishers target different areas which does not reflect or give an accurate picture of the eel numbers in these areas. To collect accurate data on eel numbers, eel fishers would need to be going back to the same areas year in and year out and measuring what eels are left in these habitats. Presently the MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilisation or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing.

Longfin eels are a single national population and are endemic to New Zealand and once they are gone, they are gone forever. Due to their life cycle where they spawn at the end of the life, many eels may not be even reaching their spawning potential. I recommend that the quota on Long finned eels be cut to zero.

The overfished regions can only be restocked by the offspring of eels from other regions. Continued harvest of eels in those other regions means that the number of elvers will continue to decline, since every eel that is harvested is an eel that will never reproduce.

~~Thank you for considering my submission. Shelley Hackett]~~

~~1 362 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Siobhan Leachman s 9(2)(a) Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 8:02 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on the reviewing of the annual quotas for the South Island longfin commercial eel fishery~~

~~I wish to make a submission on the annual quotas for the commercial fishing of longfin eels in the South Island.~~

I firmly believe that the Ministry of Primary Industries should follow the advice given by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, in 2013. MPI should bring to a halt all commercial fishing of the longfin eel. I am concerned that if the quota for commercial fishing of this species is not reduced to 0, New Zealand and the world will eventually see the extinction of yet another of New Zealand's unique endemic species.

As I’m sure you are aware the panel investigating the status and management of the longfin eel in 2013 criticised the limited set of information currently being used to guide management decisions and came to the conclusion that the longfin eel population has been substantially reduced. Given the long lived nature of this species and the current and arguably increasing threats to its habitat, I would argue that the best way to improve the chances of survival of this species is to ban the commercial fishing of it.

I therefore agree with the recommendation made by the Commissioner that commercial fishing should be suspended until evidence shows that longfin eels have recovered to a sustainable level and hope that the MPI follows this sensible advice by halting commercial fishing of the species.

I look forward to hearing the result of this process and hope that the MPI works in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and the Commissioner for the Environment to ensure the survival of this tango by banning commercial fishing of longfin eels.

~~Best regards~~

~~Siobhan Leachman s 9(2)(a)~~

~~1 363 s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Inshore Fisheries Management, Ministry for Primary Industries, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140. 11th July 2016~~

~~Submission on:~~

~~Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016. MPI Discussion Paper No: 2016/15~~

The South Island Eel Industry Association (SIEIA) represents commercial eel fishermen who utilise the eel resource (shortfin and longfin eels) in freshwaters and coastal estuaries in the South Island. Our members comprise the majority of eel permit holders, and take the majority of the commercial shortfin and longfin eel catch in the South Island.

~~SIEIA has carefully considered the options presented in the Discussion Paper, and provides this submission to it.~~

~~If a hearing is to be held, SIEIA would like to be heard in support of this submission.~~

~~Background~~

The separation of eel (ANG) stocks, and this subsequent Review of management controls, has been based on a unfortunate history of flawed scientific reasoning, ignoring scientific studies, and misuse of established policy. This can be summarised as follows:

1. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment produced a Report on the status of longfin eels, concluding that MPI should investigate closing the commercial eel fishery. This conclusion was based on a faulty analysis of electro-fished longfin elver recruitment data, which has since been scientifically discredited.

2. MPI considered it prudent to separate stocks on the basis of “… a more precautionary approach to be taken for the more vulnerable longfin eel to help increase its abundance”. There is no basis or rationale in the Fisheries Act for simply increasing the abundance of a harvested species, without reference to an outcome (such as Maximum Sustained Yield or target biomass). The default 40% target

~~364 biomass outcome for longfin eels has been achieved for longfin eels, because more than 58% of longfin habitat is unimpacted (see point 5 below).~~

~~The Discussion paper states that the Minister has decided to … increase the population and improve the long-term sustainability of LFE. Section 3.1 also states~~

~~“there is a concern to ensure the level of harvest of longfin eels, in particular, is managed at a level that ensures sustainability and allows longfin population to rebuild.”~~

One objective does not beget the other i.e. improving the long-term sustainability of longfin eels (LFE) does not necessarily involve increasing the population. In fact, there needs to be a “fish-down” process to allow stocks to be harvested sustainably. The “fish-down” has occurred (in less than 42% of longfin habitat), and now LFE stocks are being sustainably harvested.

Indeed, it is unlikely that the measures proposed in the Discussion Paper would have the effect of increasing the abundance of longfin eels, even if it were necessary to do so. Habitat issues are infinitely more relevant to rebuilding longfin populations than existing catch rates, especially hydro dams. The Minister is acting contrary to the Fisheries Act which requires sustainable utilisation. The sustainability of the LFE fishery is wholly reliant on habitat issues, not catch rates, because less than 27% of their habitat is fished.

3. Eel stocks are managed on the basis of CPUE and recruitment data analyses. In all South Island Management Areas, with one exception (LFE 15), CPUE is stable or increasing since they were brought into the QMS in 2000. In all areas where recruitment can be accurately monitored, it has also shown stable or increasing trends since 2000. CPUE has reduced very slightly in the last 2 years in ANG 15 because lower longfin eel prices has reduced the catch area, which increases catch “effort” but retains catch efficiency (i.e. the cost of catching fewer longfin eels remains the same because the distance travelled to catch them is reduced).

4. It is untenable for MPI to imply that the “headroom” between the TACC and actual landings needs to be removed. Most iwi-held ANG quota is shelved, along with other quota which is privately shelved for various reasons. The 4-Tonne minimum holding requirement, landed values and market access also have the effect of shelving a proportion of the catch every year. Longfin eel landings are most certainly not related to longfin abundance.

5. A recent NIWA report (Beentjes et al 2016)1 mapped longfin eel habitat, and concluded that only 27% of longfin habitat in the South Island, and 42% of mainland NZ longfin habitat was “impacted” in any way by commercial fishing. This excluded Stewart Island and the Chatham Islands, which are 100% unimpacted by commercial fishing, and are major longfin eel habitats. This means that over 58% of longfin habitat is unimpacted by commercial fishing. Recreational and customary eel fishing is minimal for this species outside the commercially-fished areas, and is therefore unlikely to significantly affect this figure.

~~Effect of Discussion Paper outcomes~~

~~365 The likely effect of the separation of ANG stocks, and imposition of new management controls are as follows:~~

1. Existing longfin fishermen will end up with some longfin quota, and some shortfin quota. Similarly, shortfin fishermen will end up with longfin and shortfin quota. These quota parcels will then need to be traded in an attempt to recover their original position. It is unlikely that this will be done without cost to each fishermen unless the total amount and value of quota is unchanged (which is unlikely).

2. Catch efficiency will reduce significantly, as fishermen will be unable to take advantage of catching shortfin eels during floods, and because shortfin ACE will be less available. In addition, this reduced flexibility in managing ACE parcels will make fishing much more difficult in the shorter South Island fishing season (effectively November to March).

~~3. Many existing eel fishermen will be forced out of the industry, because the cost of recovering their original position will be too great.~~

4. The two main eel processors, Mossburn Enterprises Ltd and Levin Eel Trading, will have fewer and less-experienced fishermen available to catch their ACE. Their ability to manage lop-sided parcels of SFE & LFE ACE during the short summer fishing season will also be reduced. Their ability to fulfil existing eel markets (established over the last 30 years) will be reduced, and processing costs will increase because of the more intermittent eel supply. It is likely that at least one of these processing companies will be forced to close as a result of these measures.

5. The information being gathered by the SIEIA datalogging project will be significantly reduced. As it is not compulsory (but currently it is widely used), and there is a significant cost to maintaining its scientific integrity, the datalogging project will probably cease. It will thus no longer be able to provide information to assist other freshwater fishery management agencies such as the Department of Conservation.

Fisheries management decisions need to be based on robust science and consistent policy. The Discussion Paper, and the previous Decision to separate ANG stocks, are not based on these two realities. The adverse outcomes of these measures are significant, both to fisheries management and wider freshwater management.

~~SIEIA therefore rejects the reasoning provided in Section 3 of the Discussion paper and requests that this Discussion Paper be set aside, for the reasons outlined above.~~

~~This submission is therefore made on the basis that, while some Options are favoured over others, this in no way suggests that SIEIA accepts or supports the implementation of any of these measures.~~

~~Preferred Options~~

~~The preferred options of SIEIA are:~~

366 SFE 11 – Option 2 LFE 11 – Option 3 SFE 12 – Option 2 LFE 12 – Option 3 SFE 13 – no preference LFE 13 – Option 1 SFE 14 – Option 2 LFE 14 – Option 3 SFE 15 – Option 2 LFE 15 – Option 3 SFE 16 – Option 2 LFE 16 – Option 2

NB:  For SFE 13, SIEIA has a neutral stance and prefers that submissions from individuals be given due regard.  For LFE 13, SIEIA agrees that there is no commercial longfin fishery in Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere and therefore Option 1 (nominal catch only) is suitable.  All options preferred by SIEIA are based on the premise that the new TACC’s should be based on the hghest catch rather than the average catch, for both SFE and LFE. This is justified, given that CPUE for both species in all areas has not significantly decreased, even afer the highest catches have been taken.  SIEIA notes that a 10% increase in SFE 13 is a very modest increase, given that CPUE has increased threefold in the last 10 years, and remained at saturation level for the last 5 years, despite changes to the lake mouth-opening regime and the reduced harvest of male migrant eels. While SIEIA is neutral on this issue, we make the point that MPI needs to be consistent on its TACC settings when they are mainly based on CPUE trends.

~~Additional comments~~

~~1. The Discussion Paper states:~~

For ANG 11, 12 and 14, there is insufficient data to determine stock status. Therefore, a comparison between the actual catch and the TACC was undertaken. Where the actual catch is below the TACC, the difference (headroom) is considered to represent an elevated risk that, if fully caught, the current TAC may not be sustainable.

~~This is not a valid argument. “Headroom” below the TACC cannot be considered a “risk” to a fishery. Fisheries management decisions are based on scientific analyses of CPUE, not “headroom”.~~

~~2. Part of the Ministers “package” to improve longfin eel stocks includes:~~

~~“Improved information from the commercial longfin eel fishery to better inform stock assessment.~~

~~367 This included improved commercial catch reporting and additional data provided by universities, the Department of Conservation and local councils to assist in monitoring eel abundance.”~~

The “improved” information from commercial fishermen will do much more that “better inform stock assessment”. In addition to present catch data, the SIEIA datalogging project will provide an electronic database of catch locations, bycatch species, water quality and river channel changes. This information can be used for a wide variety of freshwater management outcomes, and has already been requested by a number of freshwater managers and researchers to assist with their work.

~~Such information will not be forthcoming if the likely effect of the measure outlined in Discussion Paper are realised i.e. the eel fishery declines~~

All of this “additional data” is from electric fishing. Electric fishing is known to be inaccurate for longfin elvers in particular and possibly damaging to the eels themselves. It cannot be accurately used at un-wadeable depths, which constitutes a large proportion of adult LFE habitat.

3. Because new entrants to the fishery will need to be encouraged, the minimum holding requirement will need to be abolished. Currently, eight experienced fishermen are about to (or already have) leave the industry, because of the uncertainties caused by the separation of ANG stocks and subsequent TACC review. It takes three years to train a new fisherman into the industry. Only about one fishermen in 10 will last the three years, so another 80 new entrants will need to start training in order to make up the existing shortfall. This will not be possible under a 2 tonne minimum-holding regime.

~~Yours faithfully~~

~~pp: Victor Thompson Chairman – South Island Eel Industry Association Inc~~

1. Beentjes, M.P.; Sykes, J.; Crow, S. (2016). GIS mapping of the longfin eel commercial fishery throughout New Zealand, and estimates of longfin habitat and proportion fished. Draft New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report held by Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington.

~~368 Stella McQueen s 9(2)(a)~~

~~10 July 2016~~

~~Submission on Discussion Paper 2016/15: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

I am a biologist and science communicator focussed on New Zealand’s native freshwater fish. I am mainly employed in field-based contracts all across the country, usually focussed on surveying and monitoring, and currently on fish rescue for roading projects. In my work I have seen stream after stream where there is not a single eel above the minimum legal weight, even in very remote places. As a science communicator, I help to spread the word about our fascinating and threatened native fishes to the public through social media, radio and public talks.

The quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” It is appalling that, three years on, we are still fighting to stop a tiny industry from annually exporting hundreds of tonnes of a threatened, endemic species.

~~I would like to focus on the following points:~~

1. Catch data/CPUE cannot show a population stabilisation or increase. MPI’s discussion paper places much weight on annual catch data and CPUE. After years of rapid decline, catch data for the last ten years has fluctuated widely around a mean of 200 tonnes of longfin eels harvested per year. MPI believes that this indicates the longfin eel population has stabilised and is possibly increasing.

Catch data cannot show this. Eel fishers move around their regions targeting the locations that are most likely to give high yields. Since it is possible to catch most of the eels in a reach in a night or two, they are essentially strip-mining each location before moving on to the next. They will only return to a site when they know that enough of the undersized eels previously left behind have grown to a catchable size.

Catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing. The issues with relying on catch data were very clearly stated in the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s 2013 report.

2. “Only” 27% of habitat suitable for longfin eels in the South Island is fished. Nationally, 50% of habitat suitable for longfin eels is no longer accessible to them due to hydro dams, most of which are in the South Island. On top of that, there are many other types of barrier that prevent longfins from accessing suitable upstream habitat. Eel fishers won’t bother fishing in places with few eels, and won’t fish the same place very often because it is not worth their time. Thus it is alarming rather than comforting that 27% of South Island habitat suitable for longfin eels is fished.

369 3. Different quotas for different regions will have no effect on the survival of the species. MPI’s discussion paper suggests different quotas in different areas - some overfished regions could have a zero quota allowing those stocks to rebuild, while others could be reduced or similar to previous years.

Longfin eels must be managed as a single national population. Eels from all over the country migrate to communal spawning grounds in the Pacific Ocean, where they spawn and then die. The numbers of elvers coming back to New Zealand is dependent on the total number of adults from all regions migrating out to spawn. The juvenile elvers do not 'home' to the rivers or regions their parents came from. Overfishing in one region directly affects the total number of adults migrating to spawn and therefore the total number of elvers available to populate other areas. This is why even inaccessible sites that have never been fished now have small eel populations and insufficient recruitment of elvers.

Only when there are significant and sustained increases in the total pool of mature eels migrating to spawn, and of elvers returning to New Zealand, can the national longfin population be considered to be increasing. Regional changes are meaningless.

If MPI truly wishes to manage the longfin eel fishery in a way that will “support/promote an increase in longfin eel abundance”, then they must set the quotas for LFE 11-16 at zero. Longfin eels are extremely long-lived, and only spawn once at the end of their lives. They have a very high natural juvenile mortality rate and correspondingly low natural adult mortality rate. They are also slow growing, and take an average of 17.5 years to attain the minimum legal size in the South Island and averaging growth of 1cm in length per year thereafter. Thus it will take a very long time for the population to show any significant improvement following a reduction of the quota to zero. Because of this, the zero quota must be maintained for at least twenty years for there to be reliable data on subsequent changes to longfin abundance. It will likely take much longer before the population has increased to levels where the development of a new, sustainable commercial fishery is possible.

As the removal of the longfin eel from the commercial fishery will likely increase pressure on the shortfin eel, the quotas set for the shortfin in the South Island in 2016 should be conservative. Differences in the lifecycles of the two native eel species make it predictable that the longfin eel population would show the effects of overfishing well before the shortfin. The shortfin eel population must be more closely monitored in the future, using far more robust measures than the discredited CPUE data, and with annual quotas responding quickly to any suspected negative trends, otherwise MPI will be faced with another species declining towards extinction under their management.

The decline of longfin eels over the last 50 years has been so severe that the survival of the species is now dependent on drastic action. In 2013, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment called for an immediate moratorium on eel fishing. Three years and hundreds more tonnes of exported eels later, that call is even more urgent.

~~370 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 5:51 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Review of S. Is. Eel Fisheries~~

~~Stephanie Jo Bowman s 9(2)(a)~~

~~10 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

I am a conservation science leader and educator with the international organization The Biodiversity Group. I have spent much time in New Zealand and understand the wildness that is such a boon to your country’s tourist industry. I am a global citizen and stakeholder in the health of our global freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilization or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing.

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Stephanie Jo Bowman Community Engagement Director The Biodiversity Group www.biodiversitygroup.org~~

~~1 371 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Stephanie Mills s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 9:32 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Eel fishery~~

~~I would like to make a submission in support of a moratorium on the long fin commercial fishery. These amazing creatures need a breathing space! Stephanie Mills~~

~~Sent from my Samsung device~~

~~1 372 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Stephen Judd s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 1:10 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on longfin eel South Island quota~~

~~My name is Stephen Judd. I am a Christchurch resident (12 Cobham St, Spreydon).~~

~~I respectfully submit that there should be no quota -- a zero limit -- for longfin eel catch.~~

~~This is because the longfin eel is a seriously threatened native species found nowhere else.~~

~~The unusual nature of the eel breeding cycle means that normal guidelines aren't enough to preserve the remaining population, even though present population levels appear to have stabilised.~~

~~This is in line with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's 2013 recommendation for a moratorium on longfin eel harvest.~~

~~Yours sincerely~~

~~Stephen Judd~~

~~1 373 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Sue Boyde s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 11:09 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 - Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries

~~Susan Melanie Boyde s 9(2)(a)~~

11 July 2016 Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016. In the summer of 1995-96, immediately before the establishment of Kahurangi National Park, I and my husband walked through the Matiri, by the tops to Whangapeka, down the Karamea to the Lewis and out via the Tablelands. All along the way we saw commercial eelers hoovering up the eels of what was soon to be a national park. We were aghast at the destruction of these animals. I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel. The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilisation or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing. Longfin eels are a single national population and must be managed as such. At the end of their lives, they migrate to distant communal breeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean, where they spawn and die. It is meaningless to set quotas in severely overfished regions to zero, while continuing to harvest eels in other regions, as MPI has proposed. The overfished regions can only be restocked by the offspring of eels from other regions. Continued harvest of eels in those other regions means that the number of elvers will continue to decline, since every eel that is harvested is an eel that will never reproduce. Longfin eels are very slow growing, long-lived and spawn only once at the end of their lives, so their numbers will not increase quickly after a zero quota is established. The zero quota must be maintained for at least twenty years before any reliable trends will become apparent. The commercial harvest of any declining native species is completely unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century. Let’s stop the slaughter of the longfin eels – let’s not drive yet another species to extinction. Thank you for considering my submission. Sue Boyde

~~1 374 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Sue Burton s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 4:58 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on Eeling~~

~~Susan Burton s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

As a New Zealander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel. I grew up swimming in NZ rivers and want to make sure my grandchildren can do the same. Our waterways will continue to be degraded without diverse ecosystems and I implore MPI to be a positive factor in the life of our rivers.

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Susan Burton~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~1 375 9/07/2016~~

~~Terra Dumont & Matthew Hanson s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Fisheries Management Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6140 [email protected]~~

~~Dear Fisheries Management Team,~~

Submission re: Review of fisheries sustainability measures for 1 October 2016 in specific regard to the Review of management controls for the South Island longfin and shortfin eel fisheries (LFE 11- 16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016

We commend the Ministers decision to separate the South Island eel stocks into shortfin and longfin stocks. We ask that a moratorium is put on all commercial harvest of longfin tuna until such as time as their population increases to a state that they are are ranked as ‘Not Threatened’ by the New Zealand Threat Classification System. To reduce the effect on people currently employed in harvesting this species we suggest that a yearlong phase-out is implemented.

We understand that fishing is not the only reason for the chronic decline in longfin tuna populations, however removing the fishing pressure will hopefully reduce their rate of decline. Longfin tuna is a tonga of this country and should be afforded the protection of their threatened avian counterparts.

~~We look forward to meeting longfin tuna in the wild rivers of Aotearoa for perpetuity. We request that you put in appropriate fishery regulations for this to occur.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Terra Dumont and Matthew Hanson~~

~~s 9(2)(a)~~

~~376 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Tony Lucas s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 5:48 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Re- Submission regarding Commercial Eel Quota.~~

I am writing a submission regarding the MPI review of the Commercial Eel quota. If I may introduce myself. I am Tony Lucas, I currently live in Hawkes Bay and am a Citizen Scientist and Freelance Journalist. I have conducted some studies on our native Whitebait observing feeding behavior and current effects on the Whitebait.

I am concerned regarding the review of the Commercial Quota for Longfinned Eels (Anguilla dieffenbachii). This species is severely in decline and at risk of extinction. Being an endemic species its extinction would be a loss of cultural and faunal heritage. In the early days of Maori colonization much blood was shed over the rights to waterways containing this species and many battles were fought over the rights to certain fishing areas. This species is long lived, there have been records of Eels that are 106 years old and breed only once during their lifetime then die. Males of the species only migrate for this final time between the ages of 11 to 34 years old, only once then die. Females only breed at the age of 27 to 61 years old, only once then die. They take 18 years to reach commercial legal size, 220 grams and this is the time many males should be heading out to breed to replenish the stocks but instead are caught along with females not allowing adequate replenishment of future generations leading to a decline and eventually extinction of the species. On to of Commercial Fishing pressure this species also faces threats from mechanical clearance of drainage channels, hydro-electric turbines, flood control pumps and drainage and habitat modification. Wetlands have been reduced up to 90% in some areas greatly reducing suitable Eel habitat. A decline in the Eel population will also have an effect on the Trout industry as research carried out on the compatibility of Eels with other species of fish has proven that the extermination of Eels from certain areas was detrimental to the Trout. Although there are more Trout in the Eel free rivers they are a lot smaller and in poorer condition than those fish in rivers containing Eels. I believe lowering quotas will not increase the abundance of Eels for many years as a breeding population has to reestablish, but it will reduce the accumulated decimation and probable extinction of the species as a whole. I ask that the MPI take these points into consideration when looking at the quota limits and not let yet another endemic species of our freshwater fauna go the way of the Grayling (Protooctes oxyrhychus) which used to roam our waterways in numbers so great it is said some shoals took 3 days to pass an area of river. Now they are officially extinct never to be seen again apart from a few specimens in the National Museum which are faded due to the preservation methods used. Let us not let our Longfinned Eel go the same way while we still have time to do something about it. I sincerely hope you will take these points into consideration.

~~Tony Lucas.~~

~~1 377 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Trevor FitzJohn s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 1:26 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long Finned Eels~~

~~Dear MPI~~

~~Re submissions on Long Finned Eels~~

~~I am Dr Trevor FitzJohn MBBS BMedSci FRANZCR ONZM~~

~~I write as an interested conservationist. I read the PCE report on Long Finned Eels in Dec 2014. And I now noteyou are asking for submissions. I support Dr Jan Wright's concerns.~~

1. I note there is concern re data on viable populations, both locally and nationally 2. I note there may be overfishing. 3. Given the unusual life cycle of long finned eels having a long life and only breeding at the end this makes them susceptible to population collapse well after the over fishing has occurred so extra vigilance is need again locally and nationally. 4. Habitat degradation from industry and farming. 5. Reduction in river access from dams and irrigation systems.

~~I ask you to consider these facts when reviewing the fishing quotas for this unique NZ fish.~~

~~Kind regards Trevor~~

~~Trevor FitzJohn s 9(2)(a)~~

~~Web www.pacificradiology.co.nz~~

~~1 378 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Troy Michie s 9(2)(a) Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016 12:57 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Longfin eel submission~~

~~To whom it may concern,~~

~~Stop harvesting the longfin eel and set the quota to zero.~~

~~In April 2013, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in no uncertain terms that:~~

“It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is the problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

~~If you need more reasons that this, you are merely looking at the financial side of this debate and therefore shouldn't be involved at all.~~

~~I'd rather have rivers full of eels than another species put into extinction because of the lack of action from dithering politicians and the continued greed of rapacious developers and 'investors'.~~

~~Yours sincerely,~~

~~Troy Michie~~

~~This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.~~

~~www.avast.com~~

~~1 379 Sonja Hempel~~

From: Tui Garcia s 9(2)(a) Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 9:07 a.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission: Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11- 16 & SFE 11-16) in 2016

~~Hi,~~

I am very concerned about the plight of the NZ eel population, and agree with the Environmental Commissioner that all commercial fishing should be halted until the practice can be proven sustainable long term by an independent reviewer.

The damage humans have already inflicted on our rivers with pollution, invasive species, dams and other man made structures has already had a heavy toll on our native fish life, I would hate for our eels to be further affected by unnecessary commercial action, especially as eels have a unique, complex and lengthy lifespan where the effects of commercial fishing are not always immediately clear.

~~Please take into consideration NZ's conservation reputation and don't let the eel become another species threatened with extinction at the hands of humans.~~

~~Kind Regards~~

~~Tui Garcia~~

~~1 380 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Vivienne Kent s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 4:48 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Eels~~

~~Dr Vivienne Kent s 9(2)(a)~~

~~10 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~I am Vivienne Kent. As a New Zealander, I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Vivienne Kent.~~

~~Dr Vivienne Kent PhD (Sociology) Academic research & teaching~~

~~1 381 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Una Ren s 9(2)(a) Sent: Sunday, 10 July 2016 7:48 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15~~

~~Xiaoyun Ren s 9(2)(a)~~

Wellington, New Zealand 11 July 2016 Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016. My name is Xiaoyun Ren. As a New Zealander I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel. The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero. As the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated in April 2013 “It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.” MPI claims that eel fisher’s catch data over the last ten years show a stabilisation or increase in eel numbers. Eel fishers will only target places that are still worth fishing. They can catch most of the eels of harvestable size in a stream in a night or two, before moving on to the next stream. Thus catch data doesn’t show a census of the eel population, but rather how successfully the eelers are strip-mining the country’s waterways. The catch data could remain the unchanged for decades while the population is reduced to nothing. Longfin eels are a single national population and must be managed as such. At the end of their lives, they migrate to distant communal breeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean, where they spawn and die. It is meaningless to set quotas in severely overfished regions to zero, while continuing to harvest eels in other regions, as MPI has proposed. The overfished regions can only be restocked by the offspring of eels from other regions. Continued harvest of eels in those other regions means that the number of elvers will continue to decline, since every eel that is harvested is an eel that will never reproduce. Longfin eels are very slow growing, long-lived and spawn only once at the end of their lives, so their numbers will not increase quickly after a zero quota is established. The zero quota must be maintained for at least twenty years before any reliable trends will become apparent. The commercial harvest of any declining native species is completely unethical. An export fishery that threatens a unique native species for the financial benefit of a handful of people is not acceptable in the 21st century. Thank you for considering my submission. Xiaoyun Ren

~~1 382 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: Yuri Forbes s 9(2)(a) Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 2:00 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: My Submission for Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

~~Yuri May Forbes s 9(2)(a)~~

~~11 July 2016~~

~~Submission on: Discussion Paper 2016/15 – Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eels Fisheries (LFE 11-16, SFE 11-16) in 2016.~~

~~My name is Yuri, I am 41 years old and as a New Zealander I am a stakeholder in the health of our freshwater ecosystems, and am concerned about the future of the longfin eel.~~

~~The commercial quotas for longfin eels in all regions of the South Island should be set to zero.~~

~~Thank you for considering my submission.~~

~~Yuri May Forbes 1 383 Sonja Hempel~~

~~From: zoe booty s 9(2)(a) Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 7:52 p.m. To: FMSubmissions Subject: Long fin eels~~

~~Categories: Transferred to Piritahi~~

I support the Parliamentary Commisioner for the Environment’s call for a moratorium on the harvesting of long fin eels. Everything that can be, must be done to save and grow our native species. Zoe Booty, Whangarei. 0112

~~1 384~~